UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A psychological study of soccer players, ages nine, twelve and fifteen years Rizzardo, Marc R. 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A7_5 R59.pdf [ 5.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077281.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077281-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077281-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077281-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077281-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077281-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077281-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077281-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077281.ris

Full Text

A PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY OF SOCCER PLAYERS, AGES NINE, TWELVE AND FIFTEEN YEARS by Marc R. Rizzardo B.P.E., University of British Columbia, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Physical Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 1980 © Marc R. Rizzardo, 1980 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a llowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Pl a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 DE-6 (2/79) i ABSTRACT The purposes of the study were to determine i f a characteristic psychological profile exists for soccer players at the ages of nine, twelve and fifteen years; to determine i f psychological profiles differed between el i t e and recreational soccer players; and to determine i f these differences between the elite and recreational soccer players were constant across the same ages mentioned above. In attempting to identify a psychological profile for e l i t e soccer players at the ages of nine, twelve, and fifteen years, i t was hypothesized that: 1. (a) The elite athlete demonstrates levels of higher emotional stab i l i t y , tough-mindedness, aggressiveness, dominance, persistence, self-confidence and a tendency toward extraversion, than the recreational soccer playing individuals. (b) The e l i t e athlete shows a higher self-concept than the recreational soccer playing individuals. (c) The el i t e athlete shows a lower sport competitive t r a i t anxiety level than the recreational soccer playing individual. (d) The el i t e athlete shows a more internal locus of control of reinforcement than the recreational soccer playing individuals. 2. The magnitude of the difference between the e l i t e and recreation-1 a l soccer playing individuals with respect to psychological variables, increases as age increases. The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, Martens' Sport Competitive Anxiety Test, the Nowicki-Strickland Children's Locus of Control Scale and either Cattell's Children's Personality Questionnaire i i (ages 8-12) or Cattell's High. School Personality Questionnaire (ages 12-16) were administered to 136 male soccer players that participated in the Vancouver and District Soccer League (elite) or the Vancouver Community League (recreational). The data of the six personality traits hypothesized to distinguish the e l i t e athlete (emotional s t a b i l i t y , toughmindedness, aggressiveness, dominance, persistence, self—confidence) were analyzed in separate multivariate and univariate analyses of variance from the data received from the three psycho-social components - locus of control, s e l f -concept, and sport competitive anxiety. The results did not identify a specific psychological profile for el i t e male soccer players at the ages of nine, twelve, and fifteen. Therefore no s t a t i s t i c a l support was given to the premise that there i s an identifiable relationship between personality and participation in the Vancouver and District Soccer League. The e l i t e soccer players did express a higher sport competitive anxiety, along with a higher self-concept score in the two sub-scales, popularity and physical development. However, these results were not sufficient to support the premise that there was a psycho-logical difference between the e l i t e and recreational players. It was recommended that sport specific psychological questionnaires be developed and used for future endeavors in identifying psychological profiles of athletes. A second recommendation was that a longitudinal study be done on young athletes, so that the psychological development of the individual could be monitored more accurately. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT , • , t TABLE OF CONTENTS , , i±± LIST OF TABLES .......... v LIST OF FIGURES , v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v i i i DEDICATION ix Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Theoretical Formulation 1 Definitions 4 Purposes of the Study 6 Hypotheses 6 Delimitations 7 Limitations and Assumptions 7 Significance of the Study 7 Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9 Personality 9 Anxiety 19 Self-Concept 22 Locus of Control 28 Review of Instruments 33 Personality 33 Sport Competitive Anxiety 36 Self-Concept 37 Locus of Control 39 Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODS 42 Subjects , 42 Procedures 44 Instruments. 45 Experimental Design , 46 Treatment of Data , 46 iv Chapter 4 RESULTS , .... 48 Personality Traits 48 Psycho-Asocial Variables 57 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION 70 Personality 70 Self-Concept 73 Sport Competitive Anxiety 79 Locus of Control 80 Chapter 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83 Summary 83 Conclusions , 84 Recommendations 85 BIBLIOGRAPHY 86 APPENDICES A: RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY - CATTELL'S CHILDREN'S PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE 97 B: RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY - CATTELL'S HIGH SCHOOL PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE 98 C: SPORT COMPETITIVE ANXIETY TEST - Form A ... 99 D: SPORT COMPETITIVE ANXIETY TEST - Form C ... 101 E: NOWICKI-STRICKLAND CHILDREN'S LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE 103 F: PIERS-HARRIS CHILDREN'S SELF-CONCEPT SCALE . 107 G: PARENTAL CONSENT FORM 110 H: INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL SUBJECTS 113 V LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 SUMMARY OF STUDIES INVESTIGATING PERSONALITY AND ATHLETES 17 2 SUMMARY OF STUDIES INVESTIGATING ANXIETY AND ATHLETES 23 3 SUMMARY OF STUDIES INVESTIGATING SELF-CONCEPT AND ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION 29 4 PRIMARY SOURCE TRAITS MEASURED BY THE CPQ 31 5 CELL MEANS BY AGE FOR ELITE AND RECREATIONAL GROUPS 43 6 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - EMOTIONAL STABILITY ... 49 7 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - DOMINANCE 49 8 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - PERSISTENCE 49 9 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - TOUGH-MINDEDNESS 50 10 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - SELF-CONFIDENCE 50 11 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - EXTRAVERSION 50 12 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP EFFECT: PERSONALITY TRAITS 51 13 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE-LINEAR EFFECT: PERSONALITY TRAITS 52 14 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE-QUADRATIC EFFECT: PERSONALITY TRAITS 53 15 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP x AGE INTERACTION EFFECT: PERSONALITY TRAITS 57 16 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SPORT COMPETITIVE ANXIETY TEST 58 17 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS' EOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON LOCUS OF CONTROL , ........ 58 v i Table Page 18 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON SELF-CONCEPT , 58 19 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP EFFECT: SCAT, LOCUS OF CONTROL, AND SELF-CONCEPT 59 20 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE-LINEAR EFFECT: SCAT, LOCUS OF CONTROL, AND SELF-CONCEPT,.. 60 21 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP * AGE INTERACTION EFFECTS: SCAT, LOCUS OF CONTROL, AND SELF-CONCEPT 61 22 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - BEHAVIOR 64 23 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - INTELLECTUAL 64 24 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - PHYSICAL 64 25 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - ANXIETY 65 26 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - POPULARITY 65 27 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - HAPPINESS 65 28 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP EFFECT: SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALES 66 29 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE-LINEAR EFFECT: SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALES 67 30 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP x AGE INTERACTION: SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALES 68 31 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT GROUP AND AGE MAIN EFFECTS AND GROUP BY AGE INTERACTIONS OF ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS 69 32 A COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES OF CRITERION SOCCER GROUPS ON CATTELL'S PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRES 72 33 PERCENTILE RANK OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS ON THE SCAT, WHEN COMPARED TO ESTABLISHED NORMS FOR INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME AGE , 78 34 PERCENTILE RANK OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS ON SELF-CONCEPT, WHEN COMPARED TO ESTABLISHED NORMS FOR INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME AGE 78 v i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page. 1 A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: EMOTIONAL STABILITY 54 2 A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: DOMINANCE 54 3 A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: ' PERSISTENCE 55 4 A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: TOUGH-MINDEDNESS 55 5 A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: SELF-CONFIDENCE 56 6 A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: EXTRAVERSION 56 7 A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON SCAT 62 8 A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON LOCUS OF CONTROL 62 9 A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON SELF-CONCEPT (TOTAL) 63 10 A COMPARISON OF ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS AT NINE YEARS OF AGE 74 11 A COMPARISON OF ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS AT TWELVE YEARS OF AGE 75 12 A COMPARISON OF ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS AT FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE 76 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge Dr. Richard Mosher, faculty advisor and chairman of my committee, for his invaluable assistance and inspiration in the writing of this thesis and throughout my studies at the University of British Columbia. In addition I would like to thank Dr. Susan Butt-Finn, Dr. Gary Sinclair and Dr. Robert Schutz for their support as thesis committee members. Special thanks is also expressed to colleague Marc Gessaroli and Dr. Robert Schutz for their assistance in the analysis of data, and Vicky Mallory for her help in the data collection phase. A f i n a l thank you to a l l the soccer players and managers/coaches who participated in the study and made i t possible. ix DEDICATION To my parents, who at times were the only ones who thought i t possible. - 1 -Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Since Griffiths' (1938) i n i t i a l personality study on the famed Chicago Cubs baseball team, sport psychologists have attempted to categorize the successful athlete. Although the methods of investigation and evaluation have ranged from the psycho-analytic approach of Freud and his followers to the more sc i e n t i f i c a l l y derived results of Cattell (1967) and Eysenck. (1967), two major questions s t i l l remain unanswered: 1. Does a specific personality dictate the sport an individual competes in or does a sport mold the personality of those individuals that participate in that particular sport? 2. Why do some athletes become el i t e in a sport while others with the same s k i l l level never reach high levels of proficiency? The response to the f i r s t question continues to be controversial and w i l l remain so until data from a well-monitored longitudinal study i s performed on very young athletes. The direction of the response w i l l then indicate the areas that coaches, must be careful in applying their expertise when coaching youngsters. With regards to the second dilemma, i t i s possible that the el i t e athlete possesses some psychological characteristic(s) that motivates and reinforces him to endure and proceed to the higher level of proficiency. Kane (1966) was one of the primary researchers that laid the foundation of the hypothesis that each sport has a unique combination and degree of personality components. Thus, a 'soccer type' could be described as having a unique personality when compared to a 'rugby' type. Ogilvie (1968) - 2 -claims that athletes often display many of the following t r a i t s : low anxiety, dominance, aggression, extraversion, emotional s t a b i l i t y , tough-mindedness, persistence, and self-confidence. This study attempts to determine i f psychological differences exist between highly competitive, e l i t e soccer players and recreational soccer players at the ages of nine, twelve and fifteen years. Thus, an attempt w i l l be made to determine the characteristics.of the psychological profiles of e l i t e soccer players at the ages mentioned. The ages nine, twelve and fifteen have been chosen because nine years is the youngest age that the psychological questionnaires are developed for and the seven year span represents the years a soccer player plays organized soccer in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, To develop an accurate psychological profile'. of the e l i t e soccer player, more than a general personality description of the athlete, as measured by Cattell (1967), is required. Of a l l the psychological performance variables that are measured in research, the most consistently useful variables pertaining to young children/adolescents in competitive sport are anxiety, locus, of control, and self-concept. Numerous tests and questionnaires have been developed in an effort to evaluate these components. Unfortunately, the majority of the measures deal with adults, as does most of the available literature. Anxiety has been found to be a very important performance variable for an individual. The Yerkes-Dodson 'Inverted-U' Hypothesis states that every performer has an optimum level of arousal he needs to attain i f he wishes to have a high performance level. If the athlete's level of arousal is too low or too high, the hypothesis implies, the athlete's performance w i l l suffer. Martens' Sport Competitive Anxiety Test has been - 3 -used extensively, since i t s development in 1976, in sport situations. The major impetus for this is it s sport specificity. Scanlan and Passer (1978) were among the f i r s t researchers to use i t i n their study investigating anxiety in children participating in competitive sports. The second additional variable that has been found useful when dealing with psychological profiles i s the locus of control of the athlete. If the athlete feels he is the master of his own destiny, the theorists claim he i s internally controlled. They argue that he then w i l l be responsible for his own actions and achievements. When an individual plays badly and blames others or his environment for his level of performance, researchers feel the player has an external locus of control. Usually, the successful athlete i s internally controlled. Rotter (1954), undoubtably, was the pioneer in social learning theory. In Rotter's theory "the construct of greatest empirical interest i s locus of control or internality-externality. This refers to the degree of control a person judges himself to have over his environment" (Martens, 1978:23). Using Rotter's (1954) definitions, Nowicki and Strickland (1973) constructed a measure of internal and external locus of control applicable to children/ adolescents. Self^concept has been a controversial area of investigation for many years. Some writers have questioned whether young children actually exhibit a stable self^concept« Many feel that attitudes towards self, whi,ch. later become generalized, are at f i r s t more a function of the immediate situation and so cannot be measured in any consistent fashion. While this may be true for pre-schoolers, i t appears clear that at least by age eight, self-attitudes have a reasonable amount of sta b i l i t y (Piers - I r -ani. Harris, 1969). An analysis of the above components (personality, sport competitive anxiety, locus of control, and self-concept) should permit the identification of the c r i t i c a l components of the psychological make-up of e l i t e soccer players at the ages of nine, twelve, and fifteen years. With recent estimates indicating that an increasing number of the twenty million children in North'America, between the ages of six and sixteen, are involved in competitive sport programs, i t seems appropriate to identify any possible positive and/or negative psychological effects soccer players may possess (Parker, 1975). Definitions Psychological Profile: a conglomeration of several personality and psychological performance variables that help describe the individual as different from another. The components are emotional st a b i l i t y , tough-mindedness, extraversion, dominance, persistence, self-confidence, aggressiveness, locus of control, anxiety, and self-concept. State Anxiety (A-STATE) :. subjective, consciously perceived feelings of apprehension and tension, accompanied by or associated with activation or arousal of the autonomic nervous system. An immediate stress reaction (Spielberger, 1966:17). Trait Anxiety (A-TRAIT): a motive or acquired behavioural disposition that predisposes an individual to perceive a wide range of objectively non-dangerous circumstances as threatening, and to respond to these with A-state reactions disproportionate in intensity to the magnitude of the objective danger (Spielberger, 1966:17). Competitive A-state: the tendency to perceive a specific game or activity with feelings of apprehension or tension (Martens, 1977:23). Competitive A-trait: a 'general' tendency to perceive competitive situations as threatening and to respond to these situations with feelings of apprehension or tension (Martens, 1977:23). Internal Locus of Control: the perception of positive and/or negative events as being a consequence, of one's own actions and thereby under personal control (Lefcourt, 1966:207). External Locus of Control: the perception of positive and/or negative events as being unrelated to one's own behaviours in certain situations and therefore beyond personal control (Lefcourt, 1966:207). Self-Concept: the frame of reference through which the individual interacts with the world and i s , therefore, a powerful influence on human behaviour. Self-concept is influenced by: 1. experience, especially interpersonal experience, which gives a feeling of worth or value; 2. competence i n areas that are valued by the individual and others; and 3. self-actualization, or self-realization of one's true potentialities (Fitts, 1972:38). Social Learning Theory: "... basis for behavioral prediction l i e s in the statement that behavior directed toward the. attainment of a learned goal, or external reinforcement, may be predicted through knowledge of the organism's situation and knowledge of his past learning experience" (Rotter, Chance, and Phares, 1973)'-. • Personality: A complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual behaviorally and emotionally. - 6 -This study w i l l look at emotional s t a b i l i t y , tough-mindedness, aggressiveness, dominance, persistence, self-confidence and extraversion. Purposes of the Study 1. To determine the characteristics of the psychological profiles of e l i t e soccer players at the ages of nine, twelve, and fifteen years. 2. To determine i f psychological profiles differ between e l i t e soccer players and recreational soccer players at the ages of nine, twelve, and fifteen years. 3. To determine i f differences i n psychological characteristics between e l i t e and recreational soccer players, where they occur, are constant across the ages of nine, twelve, and fifteen years. Hypotheses 1. (a) The e l i t e athlete demonstrates levels of higher emotional s t a b i l i t y , tough-mindedness, aggressiveness, dominance, persistence, self-confidence and a tendency toward extraversion, than the recreational soccer playing indivduals. (b) The e l i t e athlete shows a higher self^concept than the recreational soccer playing individuals. (c) The e l i t e athlete shows a lower sport competitive t r a i t anxiety level than the recreational soccer playing individual. (d) The e l i t e athlete shows a more internal locus of control of reinforcement than the recreational soccer playing individuals. 2. The magnitude of the difference between the e l i t e and recreational soccer playing individuals, with respect to psychological variables, - 7 -w i l l increase as age increases. Delimitations 1. The study is concerned with nine, twelve, and fifteen year old males. 2. The psychological profiles include the four psychological components: (a) personality, which is comprised of emotional sta b i l i t y , tough-mindedness, aggressiveness, dominance, persistence, self-confidence, and extraversion; (b) self-concept; .(c) sport competitive anxiety; and (d) locus of control of reinforcement. Limitations and Assumptions 1. The player selection for e l i t e and recreational teams i s done by knowledgeable coaches. In this study, i t w i l l be assumed that the e l i t e players possess greater soccer a b i l i t y . 2. The Children's Personality Questionnaire, the High School Personality Questionnaire, the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale for Children, the Sport Competitive Anxiety Test, and the Nowicki/Strickland Children's Locus of Control Scale are a l l among the'best instruments for measuring the respective attributes for nine, twelve, and fifteen year old males. 3. A l l of the subjects reside in the dis t r i c t s of either Dunbar, Kerrisdale, Point Grey and Killarney in Vancouver, British Columbia. Significance of the Study Since soccer is rapidly becoming one of the most popular sports i n North. America, i t i s appropriate to develop a psychological profile of e l i t e athletes in the sport. It has been assumed that e l i t e players possess a number of qualities that enable them to become top performers in a specific sport. These qualities may include general motor a b i l i t y , physical fitness, specific sport s k i l l s , parental and/or social pressure, and/or some psychological characteristics. This study attempts to determine i f , in fact, there are any specific discriminating psychological components, as measured by the instruments selected, between e l i t e and recreational soccer players (ages nine, twelve, and fifteen). - 9 -Chapter 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The majority of studies that have attempted to. identify a psychological profile for athletes have dealt with adult males. This trend has continued in recent years, even though the rapid growth of athletic competition involving children and youth has become a major concern to sport psychologists. Cratty, Passer and Roy (.1975:2) state that although the . "literature i s replete with, unsubstantiated pronouncements concerning the purported values inherent in athletics for the competitor, definitive data substantiating (or refuting) the directions and nature of these changes is largely lacking." For example, unt i l Cratty et a l . (1975) investigated possible changes occurring in children participating in soccer within southern California, the most recent study in child athletics dealing with possible emotional causes or results was done by Skubic in 1956. In this present research, child and adolescent athletes were studied in order to determine i f any significant differences existed between el i t e and recreational soccer players at the ages of nine, twelve, and fifteen. Thus, this review is selective i n reporting the major findings in research involving personality, anxiety, self-concept, and locus of control. Personality Since Heusner's (1952) i n i t i a l published report on a personality profile of e l i t e athletes, in this case track and f i e l d Olympians, i t has been repeatedly stated that athletes have distinctive personality characteristics as compared to non-athletes. "A basic premise of almost quasi-mystical potency for personality research i n athletics is that athletes possess unique and defineable personality attributes different from non-athletes" (Kroll, 1969:351). Kane, the British sport psychologist, has undertaken a series of studies - 10 -dealing with athletic individuals' personalities. In 1964, and again in 1970, Kane reviewed the literature, and identified traits as being analogous to top level athletes involved in sports such as track and f i e l d , swimming, and association football. He found that aggression, dominance, drive, tough-mindedness, confidence, lack.of anxiety, and emotional stability were a l l common traits to the e l i t e athletes studied. Ogilvie (1968:786) researched personalities of college football and basketball players, Olympic swimmers, and track and f i e l d competitors using a number of personality questionnaires.. He concluded that: "... those athletes who retain the motivation for competition w i l l have most of the following tr a i t s : ambition, organization, deference, dominance and aggression. There, w i l l be fewer introverted types by adult-level competition. Emotional maturity w i l l range from average to high average and be complemented by self-control, self-confidence, tough-mindedness, trustfulness, intelligence, high-conscience develop-ment and low levels of tension." He saw the foregoing psychologic picture as a positive one. For a coach, the study by Werner and Gottheil (1966) appeared to distinguish one of the positive traits - coachability. These researchers found that athletes tended to wait for direction from individuals in authority. The above was suggested as a possible explanation as. to why coaches have d i f f i c u l t y in teaching novices new s k i l l s (Butt, 1976:48). A number of studies tend to support an athletic profile concept. To achieve this end, several tests, scales, inventories, and questionnaires have been used in the study of personality. Tests such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the California Personality Inven-tory (CPI), and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) have a l l been used to depict various characteristics of athletes. Booth (1958) f e l t that the. MMPI was successful in distinguishing ath-letes and non-athletes. His 'elite player' characteristics were low anxiety - 11 -and high dominance. He also noted individual sport athletes were more depressed than team sport athletes and that only 22 of the 550 MMPI items discriminate between the e l i t e and the non-athlete. However, Slusher (1964) f e l t he was able to discriminate between high school athletes and non-athletes, and also between sports. Schendel's (1965) data, using the CPI, supported most of the earlier research, namely that athletes and non-athletes differed in personality. Other studies (Thune, 1949; Seymour, 1956; K r o l l , 1965; Behrman, 1967, Warburton and Kane, 1967; Berlin,.1974; and Alderman, 1974) have also added some credence to Kane (1970) and Ogilvie's (1968) contention that athletes can be distinguished from non-athletes. "It i s also commonly held, moreover, that in addition to differentiation from nonr-athletes, athletes in one sport can be distinguished from athletes dn another sport" (Kroll, 1969:351). Hardman (1973) agrees with Kane (1972), Kroll (1969), and Ogilvie (1968) when he states that there were marked inter-sport differences, in a survey of twelve different sports. Kane (1972:118) states that when the activity and level of participation are held constant interesting con-sistencies in personality have been demonstrated and evidence presented in support of the existence of certain 'sport types' for example, 'a soccer type' (Kane, 1966), 'racing driver type' (Ogilvie, 1968), and a 'wrestler type' (Kroll, 1967). However, Kane (1972:118) has stated that evaluating and comparing personality studies on various populations to come to some clear-cut conclusions is extremely d i f f i c u l t due to the following concerns: 1. the absence of control groups or solid research design; 2. an insufficient number of subjects; 3. the various methods of selecting subjects and possibly classifying them; - 12 -4. the numerous analytical procedures; and 5. the absence of hypothesis to work from. Hardman (1973:79) added some other important d i f f i c u l t i e s i n per-sonality studies: 1. The relevant literature spans nearly forty years, during which time methods of personality assessment and particularly methods of test construction, have changed markedly. Cattell (1960) comments:In the f i r s t phase (up to 1950) neither physical nor psychological measures were worth a cent; 2. Some of the studies look at 'surface' traits while others look at 'source' tr a i t s ; 3. Heusner's finding i n 1952 became an hi s t o r i c a l precedent and the athletic stereotype has not changed over the years; and 4. The use of mean scores only in describing data. Rarely does a study i l l u s t r a t e the range of scores obtained. Usually the mean score is given, which can lead a reader to the conclusion that the group is a homogeneous one. Hardman (-1968) and Whiting and Hendry (1969) have shown that this i s not so, and that some members of athletic groups seem.to succeed, despite a wide divergence from the group, mean and having the .'wrong' personality t r a i t s . Kroll (1969:354) has extensively reviewed the inventories that purport to assess personality and "outside of the CPI and to a lesser extent, the 16PF, there hardly exists a satisfactory inventory capable of assessing normal personality with adequately established internal and external validity." Kroll (1969:358) proceeds to say that: "personality attributes which have been demonstrated as significant differentiators between athletes and non-athletes or between athletes - 13 -in different sports are certainly personality features somehow linked to athletics. However, to contend that these traits are essential to success in sports i s not so easily done. Not only must the personality attributes differentiate athletes and non-athletes but i t must be shown to differ on logical dimensions between known levels of a b i l i t y in the same sport and/or that participation enhances the magnitude of the t r a i t . Furthermore, i f another research uncovers successful athletes who do not possess the tra i t in established dimensions then the whole argument for the tr a i t representing a personality success prerequisite f a i l s . " In recent years i t i s the latter statement that has been the central focus of conflicting research, on the 'athletic personality profile.' Butt (1976) agrees with Hardman (1973) in reviewing Ogilvie's (1968) positive psychological picture of the athlete. Butt states (1976:58) that: "the athletic profile is not a 'positive one,' rather i t is a most negative one. It i s not a personality structure that w i l l lead to the constructive handling of problems in personal or social l i f e . " Hardman (1973), in his review of a l l studies that used Cattell's 16PF, found some discrepancies in the findings of various researchers. In looking at 42 studies that covered the following sports: athletics, cross country, swimming, gymnastics, tennis, climbing, r i f l e shooting, golf, judo, wrestling, karate, association football (soccer), rugby, football and basketball, the following are selected discrepancies noted: 1. Of the 42 scores on anxiety, a second-order factor, only 10 supported the hypothesis that games players are stable, and a l l but one (Heusner, 1952) was within one S.D. of the mean. Further-more, nine groups were markedly anxious as compared to only one non-anxious group; 2. Since stens (standard ten scores) are being compared, a sten score of 4 and 7 indicate marked departure from the population mean. Only one of the 42 studies showed a marked deviation from the mean in emotional s t a b i l i t y : Heusner's Olympic study. Furthermore - 14 -28 groups scored below the mean and in the opposite direction of the continuum hypothesized by Cattell. 3. A survey of the remaining factors that are involved in the calculation of the anxiety factor revealed similar differences occurred. "In light of the above results i t i s surprising that the claim that games players are stable or non-anxious i s pursued" (Hardman, 1973:92). In completing his review of the studies already mentioned, Hardman (1973:98) declared the following conclusions: (a) At source t r a i t level, participation in sport is associated with i . Intelligence (FACTOR B + ) i i . Dominance (FACTOR E + ) i i i . Surgency (FACTOR F + ) iv. Ergic Tension (Excitability) (FACTOR Q4 + > v. Protension (FACTOR L + ) v i . Instability (FACTOR C - ) v i i . Threctia (shyness) (FACTOR H - ) v i i i . Low super-ego strength (FACTOR G - ) (b) At second-order factor level, participation in sport is associated with: i . ANXIETY (high) (I + ) i i . INDEPENDENCE (IV + ); (c) the relationship between athletic participation and introversion/ extraversion shows great inter-sport differences, as is the case with self-sufficiency versus group dependency;-(d) With the exception of intelligence the personality t r a i t scores li s t e d above show greater deviation from the general population mean - 15 -of 5.5 (stens) for less-able athletes than for internationals. The personality profile for the internationals shows greater personal adjustment than that of the less-competent player ... . Several authors in recent years have produced data to refute the 'athletic personality' and have found no major differences between groups. Rushall (1973) concluded that i t was not feasible to differentiate levels of football performance through personality inventory data. Bowman (1976) found low correlations between performance time in cross country running and personality traits as measured by Cat-tell's (1963) 16PF questionnaire. Figone (1976) found a homogeneous personality profile of baseball players regardless of a b i l i t y . He used subjects from three selected levels of competition. Similarly, Sage (1976) collected data from eight sport groups over a ten year period and found no 'specific' sport personality. Foster (1977) used Cattell's 16PF questionnaire in an attempt to discriminate between successful and unsuccessful athletes in athletics, football, base-b a l l , and basketball. He found no significant difference between successful and unsuccessful athletes in the four sports. Tattersfield (1976) administered a personality inventory to boys (aged 11-14) in swimming for three consecutive years: and concluded that there was no. significant drawback evident to the development of the personality of the athletes due to swimming. Bird (1973) found a consistency of personality characteristics, such; as intelligent, independent,•creative, and self-abasing, among female hockey players, possibly supporting a personality type, but also noted no major differences between f i r s t string players and those of lesser s k i l l s . Thomas' (1977) results on Canadian Women Intercollegiate basketball players did not identify a specific personality profile possessed by the more successful athletes. - 16 -Thus, considering the research, completed to date, controversy s t i l l exists regarding the relationship Between personality and performance. Table 1 provides a summary of the major studies that investigated personality and athletes. However, Kane (1972:118) does state that there is "... no doubt both the nature of the physical activity or sport i n question and the subjects level of participation w i l l in some way be reflected in characteristic ways of behaving." Data from longitudinal studies may be the best method of explaining the controversy surrounding personality characteristics: a cause of success in physical performance or a result of long-term involvement in sport? Weiner and Gottheil (1966) , Rushall (1968) and Kane (1970) have conducted longitudinal studies on adults and a l l have concluded that activity did not have a generalized personality effect on athletes. However, they did indicate differences between athletes and non-athletes. Orlick (1972) adds to the above findings stating that the differences between participating and non-participating children may have been evident even before organized athletic participation. Whiting (1973:6) suggests that: "... personality development i s clearly the resultant of an inter-action process between genetic predisposition and environmental opportunity." Warburton and Kane (1966:62) agree -"... the extent to which a personality i s developed depends on influences which are a)genetic, b) environmental, and c) the outcome of the reaction, between the genetic and the environment." Since genetics i s seen as an integral part of the entire profile, i t appears appropriate to study the athlete at the youngest age possible. As stated, Kane (1970) did find a difference between athletic and non-athletic individuals in his longitudinal study. Thus, Table 1 SUMMARY OF STUDIES INVESTIGATING PERSONALITY AND ATHLETES Investigator(s) Age/Skili Level Sex Sport Test Heusner (1952) Olympians M/F Track & Field 16PF Athletes were free from neurotic tendencies, more dominant and assertive, less inhibited, and more confident. La Place (1954) Professionals M Baseball MMPI Major league players higher in ambitiousness,and aggression. Booth. (1958) College M Basketball MMPI Dominance higher in athletes. Havel (1959) College M Basketball EPPS No difference between varsity and junior varsity. Merriman (1960) High School M Phillips JCR CPI Motor Ability Upper motor ability group- scored better on poise and ascendancy. • Slusher (1964) Jr. High School; Sr. M Athletes vs. MMPI High School; College Non-Athletes Significantly lower scores for a l l athletic groups. Kroll & Peterson College M Football 16PF (1965) Winning team members more venturesome and more self-confidence. Schendel (1965) Jr. High School; Sr. M Athletes vs. CPI High School; College Non-Athletes Athletes in a l l grades were more conventional, mature, sociable & leadership. Whiting & Stem- College M Swimming Maudsley Person-bridge (1965) a l i t y Inventory Non-swimmers lacked, confidence and. were more introvert. Kane (1966) Professionals; Young M Soccer 16PF Professionals; Amateur Internationals Professionals more adventurous. Werner & Gottheil College M Military 16PF (1966) Cadets No difference between athletes and non-athletes• after 4-yr. program. Behrman (1967) College M Swimming Guildford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Swimmers were, more sociable and aggressive. K r o l l (1967) College M Wrestlers 16PF No significant difference between a b i l i t y levels. - 18 -Table 1 (continued) SUMMARY OF STUDIES INVESTIGATING PERSONALITY AND ATHLETES Investigator(a) Age/Skill Level Sex Sport Test Kroll & Carlson Various ages M Karate 16PF (1967) No significant differences between, ability levels. Hardman (1968) Over 16 M Soccer 16PF Players were more anxious, extroverted, uncontrolled in their manner of play, very simple, not too serious. Bird (1970) College F Ice Hockey 16FF; EPPS; Jack-son Personality Form Players were bright, independent, creative, and self-abasing when compared to norms. Acampora (1971) College F Field Hockey AMI Successful athletes higher in self-confidence, determination, trust, leadership and emotional control. Higgs & Higgs College F Basketball AMI (1972) Top performers high on drive, leadership, self-confidence and conscience development. Stewart (1971) College M Basketball AMI Starters higher on drive, self-confidence and leadership. Slack (1972) A l l ages M/F Tennis AMI Championship players were higher in determination and mental toughness. Hammer & Tutko College M Football AMI (1973) Starte>vs..had more drive self-confidence, emotional control, trust and leadership. -Morgan & Hammer Olympians M Wrestling Profile of (1973) Mood States Olympians scored lower on depression, tension, fatigue, and confusion. Anderson (1976) Olympic; National; M Swimmers 16PF Non-National Olympians were more heterogeneous and more introverted. Thomas (1977) Collegiate F Basketball AMI; 16PF Starters and substitutes were found not to differ in terms of personality. - 19 -"... i f personality differences were due to athletics, then, presumably the cause-and-effect reaction takes place before maturity" (Kane, 1972:120). Anxie ty When reviewing the literature on anxiety, one must be careful not to confuse state anxiety with t r a i t anxiety. Tests such as the IPAT 8-parallel-form (Cattell, 1957) and Spielberger et a l (1969) Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAI) both purport to measure state anxiety. However, Martens; (1977) questioned the use of the IPAT as a measure of state anxiety because "a content analysis of the battery (IPAT) indicates that the scale assesses A-trait, not A-state anxiety." The confusion may be present in the minds of some psychologists, since the ue of IPAT in personality research is not well documented. On the other hand, Spielberger et al's (1969) TAI has been used extensively by sport psychologists. Sarason et a l (1960) emphasized the importance of being situation-specific with the development of a construct of t r a i t anxiety. Martens (1977) did just that, developing the very useful Sport;Competitive Anxiety Test (SCAT). At times, the literature on anxiety and performance is confusing to the reader. Ogilvie (1978:786) states that e l i t e athletes have "low levels of anxiety" as measured by Cattell's (1975) 16PF second order factor. Cooper (1969:22) concurs, stating that low anxiety is one of the personality characteristics that is indicative of an e l i t e athlete. Kane (1970) stated that 'lack of anxiety' was one of the characteristics describing top level athletes. Warburton and Kane (1966) concluded that although soccer players are typically low in anxiety, as measured by Cattell's (1963) 16 Personality Factor questionnaire, anxiety seems to Be related to level and type of -20 -competitive stress:. L i t t l e or no anxiety was found among schoolboys of good physical a b i l t i y unless they reach the national representative level. Warburton (1967) makes the point that Association Footballers (professionals in England) showed greater anxiety as the competitive standard increased up to the international level. Anxiety scores then dropped off, suggesting accommodation to the competitive stresses (Hardman, 1973:103). In agreement with these findings were early studies on American and British track competitors by Cureton (1960) and Heusner (1952) . They found that the anxiety level of champions was lower than the younger and inexperienced English athletes. Daugert (1966) found that high achievers in swimming had low anxiety levels and a high need for achievement. Hammer (1970))' used the Taylor Manifest Anxiety scale to test 15-17 year old male students and found no significant differences between means of the anxiety scores for participants, lettermen, and non-participants. Nelson and Langer (1965) found that football players with middle levels of anxiety consistently played better than men with extremely high or low levels of anxiety. Burton (1976) con-cluded that as anxiety levels increase the level of movement satisfaction tends to decrease. Kauss (1976) agrees with Burton, finding that anxiety does differentially affect athletic performance based on the varying demands of the tasks involved. Both researchers feel that i f the task is very d i f f i c u l t or has pressure associated with i t , novice athletes w i l l become more anxious. The experienced athlete w i l l reach his optimum level of anxiety and remain at that level. Oxendine (1970) in a relevant article to this research., suggested that basketball players, boxers, and soccer players require moderate A-states for optimal performance. - 21 -Skubic 's study (1956) suggested that 8-12 year old male baseball players were so excited and tense prior to a league game that sleeping and eating habits were disturbed. An interesting sidelight was the reason for the tension: many players were apprehensive of not getting an opportunity to play. This finding changed the substitution policy for that particular league, so that every child must be allowed to play in every game. In more recent reviews of the literature, Husman (1969), Johnson and Cofer (1974), Kroll (1970), Martens (1975) and Rushall (1973) a l l failed to agree with Ogilvie (1968). He had stated that low levels of anxiety had a high correlation to e l i t e athletes. Martens (1977:32) postulated that individual differences are determined by "accumulated consequences of participation in the competitive process." It would appear that highly competitive tr a i t anxious persons probably have not been successful in their past competitive endeavors and face the next competitive situation with the expectation of f a l l i n g short of i t s demands. Studies by Martens (1977), Scanlan (1975) and Martens and G i l l (1976) a l l found successful experiences reduced threat (fear of failure), which in turn decreased state anxiety. In a study on young, male soccer players by Scanlan and Passer (1978) i t was found "... players who were high competitive anxious, who had low se l f -esteem, and who had low performance expectancies perceived greater threat and experienced higher state anxiety when facing competition, than did those who were low competitive trait anxious, high self -esteem, and who had high performance expectancies." In yet another soccer study, Scanlan and Passer (1976) studied the effects of competitive A-trait, as measured by SCAT, and game win-loss on the perception of threat to self i n the natural competitive setting. It was found that the players, ages 10-12, who had high levels of A-trait - 22-were associated with greater pre-game A-state. In Basler et al's (1976) study, a compromise between the two polarized groups was found. No correlation was. sufficiently significant to reveal a definite relationship between gymnastic performance and arousal-anxiety levels, either pro or con. Thus, only the literature dealing with sport specific tests, such as SCAT, have formulated definite conclusions relative to the question of anxiety and i t s effect on performance. It is on this basis that the SCAT is used throughout this research. It w i l l "... identify persons who differ on their tendency to become anxious prior to competition, and not how they (players) respond to the con-sequences of competing" (Martens and G i l l , 1976:707). Table 2 provides a summary of the studies investigating anxiety and athletes. Self-Concept A review of the literature failed to reveal more than a few studies focusing on the self-concept of athletes of varying a b i l i t y levels. However, there have been numerous studies dealing with related aspects of self-concept. Thus, aspects of related research in self-concept and motor performance w i l l be provided to develop a baseline for interpreting the results of this study and a rationale for test selection. Similar to most psychological research dealing with athletics, generalizations in the area of self-concept are extremely d i f f i c u l t to make due to the conflicting results of previous studies.. As in the study of personality, one of the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n dealing with children is the inab i l i t y of psychologists to develop valid, controlled, and standardized assessment instruments, Perkins (1958) and Sears (1941) were - 23 -Table 2 SUMMARY OF STUDIES INVESTIGATING ANXIETY AND ATHLETES Investigator(s) Age/Skill Level Sex Sport Test Skubic (1956) 9-15 yrs. M Baseball General Questionnaire Players were too excited after winning or too depressed after losing to eat or sleep. Langer (1966) College M Football I-PAT Anxiety s h i f t from low score to moderate game day score was essential for good performance, Warburton & High School M Soccer 16PF Kane (1966) 15-17 Professionals Found little or no anxiety among, school boys of good ability u n t i l national team status. Hammer (1970) College No significant difference between Morgan & Hammer College (1972) State anxiety did not change over competition period. Simon & Martens High School (1976) 15-17 Professionals Found test'lto be a good predictor M Wrestling Taylor Manifest Football Anxiety Scale the two groups. M Wrestling I-PAT a two month training and M Soccer 16PF of A-state. - 24.-both heavily c r i t i c i z e d in their separate attempts to evaluate s e l f -concept in children. It wasn't u n t i l the sixties that reliable and valid inventories were available. Piers and Harris (1969) have been re-evaluating their instrument since 1964, and i t has become popular with self-concept theorists. Another aspect of child research that promotes controversy is the uti l i z a t i o n of child reporting techniques. Tillman (1952) states that there is only a s^figfrfErelationship between a child's report and a teacher's report. However, Semler (1960) found the opposite to be true as the teachers' report on the students and the 5th graders self-report were very similar. Coppersmith (1967) maintains that an individual's self-concept is not always consistent with other people's view of their own behavior. The primary studies in self-concept were concerned with differences between athletic and non-participating individuals. Behrman (1967) and Whiting and Stembridge (1965) both found that non-swimmers indicated a lower self-concept than swimmers. The data of Schendel (1965, 1970) and Wilkin (1964) support the concept that an athletic group has a s i g n i f i -cantly higher sense of personal worth and self-awareness than the non-athletic group. Schendel (1965) dealt with junior high school athletes while Schendel (1970) and Wilkin (1964) studied senior high school athletes. Cratty et a l . (1975) studied physiological and psychological changes in seven to twelve year old vfemale and male soccer players, finding: 1. the anxiety sub-scale in the Piers-Harris Self-Concpet Scale for Children (1969) differed between athletes and non-athletes. The athletes decreased their anxiety as the season progressed - 25 -and the non-sport individuals increased their anxiety during the same period; and 2. the popularity sub-scale of the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale for Children (1969) showed an increase in the athletically active boys, in their perceived popularity during the course of the season. The non-athletes indicated the opposite trend. The explanation given by Cratty et a l (1975:29) 'for these findings is that "... i t would seem that i f one [child] feels he or she is gaining popularity via competitive sports participation i t may tend to lessen anxiety, whereas i f popularity is not.perceived as changing as a result of sports participation, either no change, or, a heightening of anxiety may occur." Ibraheim and Morrison (1976) found contradictory results after comparing 100 non-athletes and 100 athletes, with the athletes' data suggesting a lower than average self-concept. Other researchers have attempted to study the relationship between motor s k i l l response and/or physical fitness to self-concept. In one of the landmark studies in this area, Johnston et a l . (1969) found significant, positive changes as a result of a physical development program. The intriguing aspect of the research was that emotionally disturbed, hyperactive, mentally retarded and brain damaged individuals were studied for the f i r s t time with regards to self-concept and fitness. Other researchers have studied able-bodied individuals with regards to a possible relationship between physical fitness and self-concept. Yarnell (1966) found a positive relationship between physical fitness and popularity in high school age males, Kay, Felker, and Varoz (1972), investigating similar relationships, indicated a positive correlation between sport interests and self-concept, in grades seven, eight and nine. - 26 -Rothfarb (.1970) tested college males who exercised regularly and another group that did not. The data shows a more positive self-concept for the daily exercisers. Brown (1970), Hurley (1971) and Warren (1972) a l l collected data that indicates the same positive correlation between self -concept and performance. The three researchers studied general physical performances, swimmers, and basketball players respectively. However, conflicting reports are also available. Phelan (1973) found no correlation Between total fitness and total self-concept in grade seven and eight males and females. Williams (1973) did an interesting study on the relationship between self-concept and two emphases of objectives in teaching. S k i l l acquisition was stressed in one group while physical fitness was emphasized for the second group. He concurs with Phelan's (1973) results indicating no significant relationship between self-concept and fitness, nor between s k i l l acquisition and self-concept. When relating various levels of success in athletics to self-concept, the data suggests a higher self-concept for the e l i t e athlete. Read (1969) found that consistent winners in competitive physical education activities had significantly higher mean body image and self-concept scores than constant losers. He also found the self-concept of consistent losers to be consistently lower. Pate (1972) found that successful wrestlers had a higher self-concept than those athletes who possessed average wrestling a b i l i t y . Merriman (I960), although finding no significant difference between athletes and non-athletes, did find that children with higher motor a b i l i t y recorded higher self-concept scores. The author suggests that one's level of motor a b i l i t y might be a more important factor in the development of personality than is athletic participation. - 27 -The importance Merriman (1960) placed on self-concept i s expressed by several other researchers. Clifton and Smith (1962) studied college students performing selected motor patterns and concluded that movement of an individual is definitely a mirror through which a person may assess himself. The more positive the bodily reflection approaches the ideal of the child, the more positive are his feelings about himself. Zion (1965) adds that the security one has in his own body relates to the security with which he faces the world and.himself. Similarly, Rosin and Ross (1968) found that feelings about the body are highly related to feelings about the self. The above studies add support to Coppersmith (1959) who hypothesized that persons whose experiences are predominantly successful should generally tend to express confidence and assurance in both behavior and perceptions. For both children and adolescents this i s important as Warburton and Kane (1966:67) noted, "motor s k i l l s were among the chief resources of social prestige for boys in the period before maturity." Cratty (1969) noted that "in the formative years,, movement is the primary avenue by which other things, i n relation to the self , are judged." Thus he feels that "failure to develop perceptual-motor efficiency may mean the development of a faulty self-concept." Keeping in mind that self-concept is a developmental phenomenon (Lord, 1971), Rosenberg's (1965) findings appear to directly support Cratty (1969). The former author found that the lower the individual's self-esteem, the less l i k e l y he was to be a highly active participant in extracurricular a c t i v i t i e s . This may be due to the fact that the adolescents with low self-esteem appeared awkward, neurotic, anxious, docile and shy. - 28 -One of Rosenberg'a (19.65) findings, further supports Lipsitt's (1958) hypothesis that a negative correlation between anxiety and self-concept i s evident. This is logical for i f an individual, as portrayed by Rosenberg (1965), did attempt to participate athletically, he would be extremely anxious. However, a study by Kowitz (1967) disagrees with Lipsitt's (1958) statement. He. found a positive correlation between anxiety and self-concept. In summary, most of the research dealing with self-concept and sports participation indicates that self-concept is an important factor in the psychological composite of an athlete, especially in the formative years of development. Table 3 provides a summary of studies investigating self-concept and athletic participation. Locus of Control The concept of locus of control has not been as heavily researched as the other three variables considered in this study. This variable has been included in recent sport research because i t is extremely important to coaches to understand i f an athlete feels his destiny is self-controlled or i f his environment totally dictates his actions. At present only a few individuals have attempted to incorporate Rotter's (1954) concept of internal-external control into their sport research. Rotter stated that "... a person at the internal end of the continuum perceives outcomes to be a consequence of his own actions and the person at the external end perceives outcomes to be a result of fate, luck, or powerful others, and therefore are beyond his personal control1.' (Martens, 1977:23). Phares (1955) produced the f i r s t scale to measure a general attitude of attributing the occurrence of reinforcement to chance rather than to oneself. After this i n i t i a l scale, a number of others were developed - 29 -Table 3 SUMMARY OF STUDIES INVESTIGATING SELF-CONCEPT AND ATHLETIC PARTICIPATION Investigator(s) Age/Skill Level Sex Sport Test Yarnell (1966) High School M General P o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between f i t n e s s and popularity. Indiana Motor Fitness Test, McGraw & Tobert Socioeconomic Test 6 week Johnson, Fretz, 4-17 yrs. M/F General Johnston (1969) Program Emotionally and mentally retarded found to increase willingness to be near c l i n i c i a n and parents. Hurley (1972) College F Swimming Tennessee Self-Concept Scale No difference in performance between those with i n i t i a l high and low self-concept. Kay, Felker, and 13-15 yrs. M General Piers-Harris Self-Varoz (1972) Concept Scale P o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between, sports interest and self-concept. Warren (1972) College F Basketball Q-sort technique No relationship between self-concept and skill level. Phelan (1973) 13-14 yrs. M/F AAPHER Fitness Test No c o r r e l a t i o n between self-concept and f i t n e s s . Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale Williams (1973) Junior High School Senior High School College M/F Two modes Tennessee Self-of teaching: Concept Scale fitness vs. s k i l l No difference between the two teaching styles and self-concept. - 30 -(Battle and Rotter, 19.63; Bialer, 19.61) the most commonly used being Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Scale of Locus of Control, Once again, the majority of scales were developed for adults although Nowicki and Strickland (1973) did develop an excellent s;cale for children. Research i s contradictory with respect to the actual effect the direction of one's locus of control has on their performance in a c t i v i t i e s . MacDonald et a l . (1968) found no differences in the performance of driving automobile simulators among subjects varying in internal-external control as a psychological personality variable. Contrary to this finding, Cromwell et a l . (1961) concluded that the greater the tendency of normal subjects to answer in the direction of external control, the less they improved their performance in the autonomous conditions over and above that in the controlled situations (Lefcourt, 1966:213). Martens (1972) believed that internal and external locus of control is linked to social reinforcement, especially when dealing with motor responses. However, his study failed to demonstrate this belief. He concluded that praise and reproof had no greater influence on the motor performance of internal control subjects than that of external control subjects. Thus, using positive or negative remarks towards an individual had no differential effect between the two groups. However, Rotter (1966) did state that i f the situation to be learned is labelled either as a s k i l l or luck, the role of the internal-external scale as a personality variable i s lowered. Martens (1972) explained the results of his study mentioned above by stating the task his subjects performed became a s k i l l . Phares (19.76:25) stated "... categorizing a situation as s k i l l leads the subject to use the results of his past performance in formulating expectancies for future performances," - 31 -Table 4 PRIMARY SOURCE TRAITS MEASURED BY THE CPQ Low Score Description Factor High Score Description RESERVED: Detached, C r i t i c a l A Cool, Alodf (Sizothymia) DULL:(Crystallized power B measure)(low intelligence) *AFFECTED BY FEELINGS: Emotion- C ally less stable, Easily upset (Lower ego strength) PHLEGMATIC: Undemonstrative,. D Deliberate, Inactive, Stodgy (Phlegmatic temperament) *OBEDIENT: Mild, Accomodating, E Easily led (Submissiveness) SOBER: Prudent, Serious F Taciturn (Desurgency) ^EXPEDIENT: Disregards rules G (Weaker superego strength) SHY: Threat-sensitive; H Diffident, Timid (Threctia) *TOUGH-MINDED: Self-reliant I Realistic, No-nonsense (Harria) ZESTFUL: Likes group action J Vigorous (Zeppia) FORTHRIGHT: Natural, Artless N Sentimental (Artlessness) *SELF-ASSURED: Confident, Secure 0 Complacent (Untroubled Adequacy) UNDISCIPLINED SELF-CONFLICT.: Follows own urges, Careless of social rules, (Low self-sentiment integration) RELAXED: Tranquil, Torpid, Composed, Unfrustrated (Low ergic tension) WARMHEARTED: Outgoing, Easygoing, Participating (Affectothymia, formerly, Cyclothymia) BRIGHT:(Crystallized power measure) (High intelligence) EMOTIONALLY STABLE: Faces reality, Calm, Mature (Higher ego strength) EXCITABLE.: Impatient, Demanding, Overactive, Unrestrained (Excitability) DOMINANT: Assertive, Competitive Aggressive, Stubborn (Dominance) ENTHUSIASTIC: Happy-go-lucky, Heedless (Surgency) CONSCIENTIOUS: Persevering, Staid, Rule-bound (Stronger superego strength) VENTURESOME:: Socially bold, Uninhibited (Parmia) TENDER-MINDEDNESS: Sensitive Over-protected (Premsia) CIRCUMSPECT INDIVIDUALISM: Reflective, Internally restrained (Coasthenia) SHREWD: Calculating, Artful (Shrewdness) GUILT-PRONE: Apprehensive, Worrying, Troubled, Compulsive (Guilt-proneness) CONTROLLED:- Socially precise, Following self-image, compulsive (High self-concept control) TENSE: Frustrated, Driven, Over-wrought, Fretful (High ergic tension) * These factors are the ones that have been hypothesized to vary between the e l i t e and recreational soccer players. (Cattell and Porter, 1975:10) Lefcourt (1966) extends the theory By classifying the internal-external scale as an expectancy-variable rather than a motivational one. He feels that i f externals view the situation as d i f f i c u l t they w i l l not attempt i t because they generally lack self-confidence or suffer from inf e r i o r i t y feelings. In general, self-confidence w i l l develop as an individual progresses through l i f e . "Research suggests that locus of control becomes more internal with age, and that internality i s associated with higher social class and white culture placement" (Nowicki and Strickland, 1973:149). In making racial comparisons Thurber et a l . (1973) used the Internal-External Scale (Rotter, 1966) to compare five black and five white colleg varsity basketball players. He found that the blacks were higher in externality than the whites but that the blacks' externality score correlated quite highly (.95) with points scored furing the season. In a study comparing team sports and individual sports, Lynn et a l . (1969) found support for his hypothesis that "... athletes trained to cooperate in team sports would be able to perceive reinforcements as dependent on their own behavior than participants in individual sports" (Martens, 1977:24). The twelve-to-fifteen year old male basketball players displayed higher internality than the similar aged gymnasts. In associating the need for achievement and locus of control, Minton (1967) found a high positive correlation between the two areas. He appears to support the "findings of voluminous research that states those subjects who are relatively internally controlled try actively to implement their intentions within the environmental conditions" (Lynn, 19.69:552). - 33 -Weiner's (1972) attributional. theory describing where individuals put the cause of losing and winning;, has been tested in the sports environment by several authors (Iso-Ahola, 1975; Roberts, 1975, Scanlan and Passer, 1978). Scanlan and Passer (1978:109) found that "... people experiencing success usually credit that outcome to themselves by making attributions to personal a b i l i t y or effort. People experiencing failure, however, tend to attribute causality to external factors such as task d i f f i c u l t y or luck." Considering the above information related to locus of control "... there i s ample reason to believe that this variable [locus of control] i s of significant influence on children's behavior" (Nowicki and Strickland, 1973:148). Review of Instruments The following review deals explicitly with the various tests and questionnaires that have been used in past research to measure four psychological components: personality, self-concept, sport competitive anxiety, and locus of control. Personality This variable has enticed the development of numerous questionnaires in an attempt to identify specific.personality characteristics. However, each instrument has specific limitations that does not allow i t to be used for a l l studies. The following questionnaires were not considered in this study because they are appropriate only for college age students and adults: the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Edwards Personality Inventory, the Eysenck Personality Inventory (a revision of the Maudsley Personality - 34 -I n v e n t o r y ) . , t h e G u i l d f o r d - H b l l y . I n v e n t o r y , t h e T r a i t E v a l u a t i o n Index and t h e Omnibus P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y , The E y s e n c k - W i t h e r s P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y was r e j e c t e d b e c a u s e i t was used on i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d a d u l t s . The M i n n e s o t a M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y a l s o t e n d s t o e x a g g e r a t e n e u r o t i c d i s o r d e r s on n o r m a l i n d i v i d u a l s b e cause i t was d e s i g n e d f o r p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s . The G u i l d f o r d - M a r t i n P e r s o n n e l I n v e n t o r y and t h e C a l i f o r n i a T e s t o f P e r s o n a l i t y a r e b o t h u s e d e x c l u s i v e l y i n t h e i n d u s t r y and employment f i e l d s . The A d j e c t i v e Check L i s t , t h e Brown P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y f o r C h i l d r e n and t h e P e r s o n a l i t y and I n t e r e s t I n v e n t o r y were found t o have p o o r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . The above r e v i e w o f p e r s o n a l i t y i n s t r u m e n t s r e v e a l s t h a t o n l y t h r e e m ajor i n v e n t o r i e s were a c t u a l l y i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r use i n t h i s s t u d y : t h e C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n v e n t o r y ( C P I ) , t h e A t h l e t i c M o t i v a t i o n I n v e n t o r y (AMI) and C a t t e l l ' s l i n e o f i n s t r u m e n t s : t h e C h i l d r e n ' s P e r s o n a l i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (CPQ) and t h e H i g h S c h o o l P e r s o n a l i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (HSPQ). The A t h l e t i c M o t i v a t i o n I n v e n t o r y was d e s i g n e d and c o n s t r u c t e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e s c r i b i n g p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s s p e c i f i c t o a t h l e t i c c o m p e t i t o r s . S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s ( O g i l v i e , 1968; R u s h a l l , 1970; A l d e r m a n , 1974) s u g g e s t t h e use o f t h i s i n s t r u m e n t , w h i c h p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n on t r a i t s such as D r i v e , A g g r e s s i o n , D e t e r m i n a t i o n , G u i l t P r o n e n e s s , L e a d e r s h i p , S e l f -C o n f i d e n c e , E m o t i o n a l C o n t r o l , C o a c h a b i l i t y , M e n t a l Toughness, and T r u s t . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , o n l y a t h l e t e s r a n g i n g f r o m h i g h s c h o o l t o p r o f e s s i o n a l l e v e l s have used i t . The CPI has p e r s o n a l and s o c i a l r e l e v a n c e b u t i t t a k e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y one h o u r t o c o m p l e t e t h e 480 Items and i t i s o n l y a p p l i c a b l e f o r h i g h , s c h o o l males. Thus, b a s e d on the f o l l o w i n g , i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e CPQ, f o r - 35 -the nine and twelve year olds, and the HSPQ, for the fifteen year olds, were the most appropriate instruments available for evaluating personality characteristics in this study. Cattell's (1975) Children's Personality Questionnaire (CPQ) This personality inventory was developed by R. Cattell (1975) and is a downward extension of the HSPQ and the 16 Personality Factor (16PF) questionnaire. It is a projective, objective test that provides maximum information, in the shortest time, about fourteen factorially independent dimensions of personality. It is:used for children from the ages of eight to twelve. Based on the scores the athlete attained on the fourteen primary personality t r a i t s , the score for extraversion/intraversion, a second-order personality factor i s calculated using the following equation (Cattell and Porter, 1975:36): Extraversion = .16A + .13E + .18F + .20H - .09Q3 +2.31 . Each one of the four forms of the CPQ has two parts. Thus Form A, the only form used in this study, is made up of Part A^ and Part k^, each consisting of 70 items, five per factor. Each item has a forced-choice 'yes' or 'no' answer, except factor B items, which have three choices. Cattell's (1975) reasoning for a forced-choice is that children (9-12) are not capable of a balanced use of the middle alternative as are older high school students and adults (Cattell, 1965:12). Each part of the questionnaire took twenty to twenty-five minutes to complete. - 36 -High School Personality Questionnaire (.1969) (HSPQ) The HSPQ was also developed by Cattell (1969) and is an extension of the CPQ and a downward extension of the 16PF. Although i t is appropriate for adolescents from the ages of twelve to.sixteen: years, only the fifteen year old athletes completed this questionnaire. The manner in which the HSPQ i s administered i s exactly the same as the CPQ. There are two distinct differences between the two tests. F i r s t l y , three responses are available: 'yes,' 'perhaps,' or'''no.? However, the individual i s requested to minimize the use of the middle category, thus in-creasing the extremity factor. Secondly, one of the traits is different from the CPQ. Factor N has been eliminated and Factor has been added. This does not affect the present study because neither t r a i t i s being con-sidered i n hypothesis l a , nor are they involved in the calculation of the second order factor - extraversion. Sport Competitive Anxiety When selecting an anxiety scale a researcher must be conscious of which specific type of anxiety he is attempting to isolate. Most of the anxiety instruments measure t r a i t anxiety or state anxiety. Instruments that measure tr a i t anxiety include Spielberger's (1970) Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAI), Taylor's (1953) Manifest Anxiety Scale (MAS), and anxiety as measured by the second order factor in Cattell's series of personality instruments. The inventories that measure state anxiety include Spielberger' s (1970) State Anxiety Inventory (SAI) and a children's form of, the SAI, Cattell's (1957) IPAT Anxiety Scale, the Subjective Stress Scale (SSS) used on soldiers, and Zuckerman's (1960) Affect Adjective Checklist (AACL). - 37 -Although: a l l of the above questionnaires, have been used in past research and report high r e l i a b i l i t y and validity, they do not meet the needs of this study. The objective of this study is to understand anxiety of the players in competitive sport situations. Only Martens' (1976) Sport Competitive Anxiety Scale meets the above c r i t e r i a . Thus i t was selected as the best inventory to measure sport competitive anxiety (A-trait) in this study, and is discussed below. Martens' Sport Competitive Anxiety Test (1976)(SCAT) This very short and quickly administered sport specific competitive t r a i t anxiety scale was developed by R. Martens (1976). It has two forms, each consisting of fifteen questions: Form A - adults (Appendix C) Form C - Children (9-14) (Appendix D) The answers to the questions could be one of three options: 'hardly ever,' 'sometimes,' or 'often.' Five of the items are spurious, with the remaining ten questions scored on a scale of one, two or three, allow-ing for a maximum score of thirty. The higher the score, the more anxious an individual is said to be in a sport competitive situation. Standardized norms are available for each age group. The SCAT has high r e l i a b i l i t y (.81), is moderately (.28 -.46) correlated to general A-trait anxiety scales (General Anxiety Scale for Children, Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children) and to the factors on the HSPQ which contain some dimension of anxiety. The fifteen items, an example of which is "your stomach gets upset before a competition," take approximately 2 to 4 minutes to complete. Self-eConcept Reviewing instruments for self-concept revealed a controversy among - 38 -psychologists. Some indicate that a nine year old youngster i s not capable of comprehending his actions and evaluating himself. Conversely, others feel that at age eight, children can express their own feelings knowledgeahly. It was concluded, by this researcher that a young child at the age of nine i s capable of reflecting opinions about himself. Only a few instruments measure the self-concept of children. The Thomas Self-Concept Values inventory i s designed to be used for children three to nine. For the above:reason, i t was not considered. The Tennessee Self-Concept Scale i s a very popular and widely used i n -ventory. Unfortunately, i t was developed for adolescents twelve years of age and older and could not be used in this study due to i t s inapporpriate age interval. The Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale for Children, a revison of the Piers-Harris Self-Opinion Test, was developed in 1969, and i t i s undoubtably the fore-runner in self-concept scales for young children/adolescents. There-fore, i t was selected as the best instrument to evaluate the players' self-concept. Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale (The Way I Feel About Myself) 1969 This questionnaire was developed by E. Piers and D. Harris (1969) as a self-report instrument on how individuals, from the ages of nine-seventeen, feel about themselves. It consists of eighty standardized first-person de-clarative statements such as "I am a happy person" and "I am the last to be chosen for games." The answers are dichotomous, 'yes' or 'no.' To avoid acquiescence, an equal number of items, were positive and negative. The em-phasis to "answer the items as you feel you are, not as you think you ought to be" was important (Piers-Harris, 1969:8). - 39 -The scales' internal consistency ranges from ,78 - .93 and i t s test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y is .71-.77. It is moderately correlated to Lipsitt's Children's Self-Concept Scale (.68), which i s a highly regarded self-concept scale. Having done a factor analysis on their piloted work, Piers-Harris (1969) found six interpretable factors: 1. Behavior 2. Intellectual 3. Physical Appearance and Attributes 4. Anxiety 5. Popularity 6. Happiness and Self. A total score of eighty is possible, as well as a sub-scale on each of i t s six factors. As an individual's score approaches eighty, the higher the self-concept the individual i s said to have. The entire scale takes ten to twelve minutes to complete (Appendix E). Locus of Control A number of locus of control scales have been developed since Phares' Scale was f i r s t published in 1955. Scales such as the James-Phares Scale (1957), the Children's Picture Test of Internal-External Control, the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (Crandall et a l . 19.64), the Level of Aspiration Board, and the Powerlessness and Normlessness Scales (Dean, 1961) were rejected because their language was not familiar to the present day student or they were developed to identify different measures than those proposed in this study. The Internal-External Control Scale by Rotter et a l . (1966) and Bailer's (1961) orally administered Locus of Control Scale have both been - 40 -used on adults and are. d i f f i c u l t to administer consistently. The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children (1973) has been used in some recent research and has been found to be quite useful. It also had data available for future comparisons. Thus, i t was selected as the best instrument to measure locus of control in children/adolescents in this study (Appendix F). A f u l l description follows. The Nowicki-Strickland Children's Locus of Control Scale (1973) This instrument was constructed on the basis of Rotter's (1954) definlton of internal-external control of reinforcement: "When a reinforcement is perceived by the subject as following some action of his own, but not being entirely contingent upon his action, then, in our culture, i t i s typically perceived as the result of luck, chance, fate, as under the control of powerful others, or as unpredictable because of the great complexity of the forces surrounding him. When the event is interpreted in this way by an individual, we have labeled this as a belief in external control. If the person perceives that the event is "contingent upon his own behavior or his own relatively permanent characteristics, we have termed this a belief in internal control." The scale i s designed to determine i f the individual i s internally or externally controlled. The higher one scores on the scale the more externally controlled the subject is said to be. The questionnaire is a forty item, forced-choice, 'yes,' or 'no,' series of questions dealing with the subjects' belief about the nature of the world that they are involved with. The items describe reinforcement situations across interpersonal and motivational areas such as a f f i l i a t i o n , achievement and dependency. Two questions follow: 1. Do you believe most kids are just born good at your sport? 2. Do you feel that when good: things happen they happen because of hard work? Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s for a six week period are (.67) for eight to - 41 -eleven year olds (N = 98) and (.,75) for twelve to fifteen year olds (N = 54) . Norms are available from a sample of 1,107, primarily Caucasian, elementary and high-school students. - 42 -C h a p t e r 3 RESEARCH METHODS The purposes. :of t h i s s t u d y a r e t o d e t e r m i n e 1. t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o f i l e s o f e l i t e s o c c e r p l a y e r s a t t h e ages o f n i n e , t w e l v e , and f i f t e e n y e a r s ; 2. i f p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o f i l e s d i f f e r between e l i t e and r e c r e a t i o n a l s o c c e r p l a y e r s a t t h e ages o f n i n e , t w e l v e and f i f t e e n y e a r s ; and 3. i f d i f f e r e n c e s i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between e l i t e and r e c r e a t i o n a l s o c c e r p l a y e r s , where t h e y o c c u r , a r e c o n s t a n t a c r o s s t h e ages of n i n e , t w e l v e and f i f t e e n y e a r s . Subj e c t s The t o t a l o f 136 male s o c c e r p l a y e r s were drawn f r o m t h r e e age g r o u p s , o v e r a two y e a r p e r i o d . The s u b j e c t s v o l u n t e e r e d when asked by t h e r e s e a r c h e r . The ages were: N i n e y e a r old:: a c h i l d who c e l e b r a t e d h i s n i n t h c h r o n o l o g i c a l b i r t h d a y between J a n u a r y 1, 1978 and December 31, 1978, t e s t e d i n 1979 o r between J a n u a r y 1, 1979 and December 31, 1979, t e s t e d i n 1980; Twelve y e a r o l d : a c h i l d who c e l e b r a t e d h i s t w e l f t h c h r o n o l o g i c a l b i r t h -day between J a n u a r y 1, 1978 and December 31, 1978, t e s t e d i n 1979, o r between J a n u a r y 1, 1979 and December 31, 1979, t e s t e d i n 1980; and F i f t e e n y e a r o l d : an a d o l e s c e n t who c e l e b r a t e d h i s f i f t e e n t h c h r o n o -l o g i c a l b i r t h d a y between J a n u a r y 1, 1978 and December 31, 1978, t e s t e d i n . 1 9 7 9 , o r between J a n u a r y 1, 1979 and December 31, 1979, t e s t e d i n 1980. A l l o f t h e s u b j e c t s i n each, age group b e l o n g e d i n one o f t h e two a b i l i t y l e v e l s : - 43 -Elit e soccer player; a child that .played soccer in the Vancouver and District Juvenile Soccer Association and/or i s on the best representative soccer team in his d i s t r i c t . There were approximately 105 to 120 active players i n each age group. Recreational soccer player: . a child that played soccer in the Vancouver and District Gommunity Soccer League. These individuals constitute a population of players that, with few exceptions, are unable to qualify for their d i s t r i c t s ' representative team in the Vancouver and District Juvenile Soccer Association. There were approximately 105 to 120 individuals participating at each age. Table 5 CELL MEANS BY AGE FOR ELITE AND RECREATIONAL GROUPS Group Age E l i t e Recreational Total 9 year old 24 21 45 12 year old 22 21 43 15 year old 26 22 48 Total 72 64 136 - 44 -Procedures After Initiating contact with, the manager/coach of the teams that participated in this study by letter, a telephone c a l l confirmed the location and date of the testing session. After returning their consent forms (Appendix G), the players completed the four questionnaires during a one-hour sittin g in a classroom at an elementary school or the Dunbar Community Center. These two f a c i l i t i e s provided the most familiar environment to the players and minimized any anxiety the athletes may have developed at another location. To ensure consistency in administration a set of instructions was prepared (Appendix H) and read prior to and during every testing session. A l l questionnaires were numbered by the researcher in advance of the testing session so that each participant's set of data was kept together and the subjects maintained their anonymity. The order in which the questionnaires were completed was consistent across the groups. Every item in the four questionnaires was read to the nine year olds. Thus, two 1/2-3/4 hour sessions were required for the nine year olds. The sequence of the questionnaires for the nine year olds was as follows: Session 1 1. Cattell's (1975) Children Personality Questionnaire - Form A^(CPQ); 2. Martens' (1956) Sport Competitive Anxiety Test - Form C - (SCAT); and 3. Nowicki/Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children (.1973). * Approximately 5% of the sample completed the questionnaires at home, in the same sequence. - 45 -Session 2 1. Cattell's (1975) Children Personality- Questionnaire - Form - (CPQ); and 2. Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (.1969). The sequence for the twelve and fifteen year olds was as follows: 1. Cattell's (1969) High School Personality Questionnaire - Form -(HSPQ); 2. Martens' (.1976) Sport Competitive Anxiety Test - Form A; 3. Nowicki/Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children (1973); 4. Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (1969); and 5. Cattell's (1969) High School Personality Questionnaire - Form A^ (HSPQ). The only difference between the twelve and fifteen year olds is that the twelve year olds completed the CPQ instead of the HSPQ. A five minute rest between tests was allowed for a l l subjects. No time restrictions were imposed on any of the age groups. Instruments With respect to the selection of measurement instruments, the following c r i t e r i a were considered: 1. validity; 2. r e l i a b i l i t y ; 3. appropriateness of questions for individuals ranging from 9-15 years of age; 4. time necessary for administration; 5. comparability to other norms for individuals and athletes of the same age; and 6. the a b i l i t y to use the same test :or one of i t s extensions for a l l three age groups. - 46 -Having reviewed the major questionnaires, that were available for selection in this study, the following four instruments were considered the most appropriate for the purposes of this study; 1. (a) Cattell's (1975) Children's Personality Questionnaire; (b) Cattell's (1969) High School Personality Questionnaire; 2. Martens' (1976) Sport Competitive Anxiety Test; 3. Nowicki/Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children (1973); and 4. Piers-Harris' Children's Self-Concept Scale (1969). Experimental Design This research used a 2 x 3 factorial design. The dependent variables were sport competitive anxiety, locus of control, self-concept, and personality. Personality was broken down into seven variables: emotional stability, tough-mindedness, persistence, dominance, aggression, extra-version, and self-confidence. Treatment o f Data A l l data was hand scored by the researcher. The anxiety, self-concept and locus of control of reinforcement data was treated in the raw score form. However, "... since measurement in psychology is usually not an absolute scale, the best that most measures can give i s the relative standing of one individual with another, or with a group of individuals" (Cattell and Porter, 1975:18). To examine the above relationships, the raw scores in the CPQ and HSPQ * were transformed to normal n-stens,' because "for best appreciation o f where an individual (or group) stands, n-stens are better" (Cattell and ft A sten i s a special case of standard scsore. It i s a linear transformation of the z-scale." It has' a range fTorn l.Q* to 10.0 and a'mean of 5.5. - 47 -Porter, 1975:19). This was done manually by. using norm tables in the CPQ and HSPQ Tabular Supplement with Norms (Cattell and Porter, 1975). Three separate multivariate and univariate s t a t i s t i c a l analyses examined differences among the three age groups and two a b i l i t y levels when a l l the measures were considered simultaneously. Hypothesis l.(a) was tested, by a separate multivariate and univariate analysis than the one used to test hypotheses l.(b), l,(c) and l.(d). Hypothesis 2 was tested by comparing the means of the data, as calculated in the above multivariate programs. A third multivariate program was run to determine i f any differences existed between the groups and ages when considering the six sub-scales of self-concept individually. - 48 -Chapter 4 RESULTS The results of this study are presented in the following sequence: 1. The results of a multivariate and univariate analysis with a trend analysis on age for six personality t r a i t s : emotional stab i l i t y , dominance, persistence, tough-mindedness, se l f -assuredness (confidence), and extraversion; 2. The results of a multivariate and univariate analysis with a trend analysis on age for three dependent psycho-social factors: sport competitive anxiety, locus of control, and total self-concept scores; and 3. The results of a multivariate and univariate analysis with a trend analysis on age for the six sub-scales of the self-concept factor: behavior, intelligence, physical, anxiety, popularity, and happiness. For each multivariate analysis, the results w i l l be documented in the following order: c e l l and marginal means, group effect, age effect, and the group by age interaction. Personality Traits Hypothesis l.(a) states that the e l i t e athlete shows higher emotional stab i l i t y , dominance, persistence, tough-mindedness, more confidence, and a tendency to be more extraverted. Tables 6 through 11 provide a summary of the means of the six personality traits mentioned above at each, age level for each, group. The range of scores is represented by sten scores between 1 and 10. Cattell and Porter (1975) state that sten scores of 4. and 7 are considered - 49 -Table 6 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - EMOTIONAL STABILITY 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X Eli t e - - - - 7.04 6.50 6.31 6.62 Recreational 6.09 6.57 6.23 6.30 X 6.56 6.53 6.27 6.46 Table 7 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - DOMINANCE ^ G r ^ u p - ^ ! ^ 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X Eli t e 3.87 6.32 6.50 5.56 Recreational 3.52 6.19 6.86 5.52 X 3.69 6.25 6.68 5.54 Table 8 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - PERSISTENCE J Age Group~<^^ 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X Eli t e 4.12 3.59 5.57 4.43 Recreational 4.28 2.90 5.59 4.26 X 4.20 3.24 5.58 4.34 - 50 -Table 9 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - TOUGH-MINDEDNESS 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X Eli t e 3.46 4.18 5.11 4.25 Recreational 4.05 4.81 5.14 4.67 X 3.75 4.49 5.12 4.46 Table 10 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - SELF-CONFIDENCE ^ r ^ p ^ ^ 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X Elite 4.17 4 .18 5.42 4.59 Recreational 3.52 4 .76 5.36 4.55 X 3.84 4 .47 5.39 4.57 Table 11 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT - EXTRAVERSION 9 yr. 1-2 yr. 15 yr. X Elite 5 .63 5 98 6 87 6 .16 Recreational 5 19 5 64 6 28 5 .70 X 5 41 5 81 6 57 5 .93 - 51 -as departing from the mean; stens: of 3 and 8 are slightly deviant; and stens of 1 and 10 are extreme deviations from the norm. Thus, group mean values of less than 4 or greater than 7 can be considered an indication of personality traits differing from a normal population. The results of the multivariate and univariate analysis of variance on the six personality t r a i t s , with regards to a group effect, are presented in Table 12. The analysis indicates that there i s no significant difference CP < .1562) between the e l i t e and recreational athletes when considering personality, therefore, hypothesis 1 must be rejected. Table 12 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP EFFECT: PERSONALITY TRAITS D.F. = 6 » 1 2 5 P < .1562 F = 1 ' 5 9 Variable Hypothesis Mean Square Univariate F P less than Emotional sta b i l i t y 3.34 0.89 0.348 Dominance 0.02 0.01 0.940 Persistence 1.42 0.46 0.500 Tough-mindedness 5.26 1.10 0.300 Self-confidence 0.13 0.04 0.850 Extraversion 7.49 5.52 0.203 Multivariate and univariate alpha levels required for rejection = .05. The results of the multivariate and univariate analyses of variance for Age-linear and Age-quadratic are presented in Tables 13 and 14. The age effect was primarily linear (P' < .001), with five of the six traits con-tributing significantly to the Age-linear effect: dominance (P < .0001), - 5 2 -persistence (P < . 0 0 0 3 ) , tough-mindedness (P < . 0 0 2 6 ) , self-confidence (P < . 0 0 0 2 ) and extraversion (P < . 0 0 0 1 ) . Furthermore, two of the tr a i t s : dominance (P < . 0 0 2 ) and persistence (P < . 0 0 0 1 ) were also the main components that led to a significant quadratic age effect (P < . 0 0 0 1 ) . Table 13 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AGET v ._ EFFECT: PERSONALITY TRAITS D.F. = 6 , 1 2 5 . 0 p < . o o o i F = 2 4 ' 5 4 Variable Hypothesis Univariate P less Mean Square F than Emotional sta b i l i t y 2 . 5 6 0 . 6 8 0 . 4 1 2 Dominance 2 0 2 . 8 4 6 7 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 Persistence 4 4 . 3 6 1 4 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 3 Tough-mindedness 4 5 . 2 0 9 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 2 6 Self-confidence 5 4 . 2 8 1 5 . 3 7 . 0 . 0 0 0 2 Extraversion 3 1 . 9 3 2 3 . 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 1 Multivariate and univariate alpha levels required for rejection = . 0 5 - 53 -Table 14 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AGE„ T T J T N„ A r n T^ EFFECT: PERSONALITY TRAITS D.F. = 6 , 125.00 p < F = 5 .94 .0001 Variable Hypothesis Mean Square Univariate F P less than Emotional st a b i l i t y 0.37 0.10 0.753 Dominance 30.60 10.12 0.002 Persistence 80.38 26.27 0.0001 Tough-mindednes s 0.02 0.004 0.948 Self-confidence 1.05 0.30 0.586 Extraversion 1.23 0.91 0.343 Multivariate and univariate alpha levels required for rejection = .05 Figures 1-6 graphically i l l u s t r a t e the general trend of the six variables over age. The results of the multivariate and univariate analysis of variance for Group x Age interaction, of the six personality tr a i t s , are presented in Table 15. The interaction proved to be not s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant (P < 0.7191). This in i t s e l f was important because i t indicates that both, the e l i t e and recreational groups, changed personality over age in ; the same manner. - 54 -Sten Scores 7 + 6 + 5 + 4 +• 3 +• 2 + 1. +• 1 12 Years of age Elite Recreational 15 Figure 1. A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: EMOTIONAL STABILITY Sten Score 7 + 6 + 5 -L 4 + 3 + 12 Years of age Recreational Elite 15 Figure 2. A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: DOMINANCE - 55 -6» -r Sten Score-Figure 3. 4 +•• 3 t-2 -h i r o-ecreational 12 Years of age 15 A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: PERSISTENCE Sten Score 6 T 5 +• 4 + 3 +• 2 4-1 +• Two scores Recreational Elite 9 12 15 Years of age Figure 4. A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: TOUGH-MINDEDNESS - 56 -Sten Score-6- -r 5 4-4 +• 2. +-E l i t e R e c r e a t i o n a l 12 Years of age 15 F i g u r e 5". A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: SELF-CONFIDENCE 7 T Sten Score 5 . 4 -4 4-3 4-F i g u r e 6, 9 12 15 ,Years o f age A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE PERSONALITY TRAIT: EXTRAVERSION - 57 -Table 15 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP x AGE INTERACTION EFFECT: PERSONALITY TRAITS D.F. =12 , 250.0 p , > 7 m F = 0.73 Variable Hypothesis Mean Square Univariate I F ' less than Emotional sta b i l i t y 3.36 0.89 0.413 Dominance 1.55 0.51 0.600 Persistence 2.24 0.73 0.482 Tough-mindedness 1.33 0.28 0.757 Self-confidence 4.10 1.16 0.316 Extraversion 0.17 0.13 0.879 Multivariate and univariate alpha levels required for rejection = .05 Psycho-Social Variables Tables 16, 17, and 18 provide a summary of the means of the three dependent psycho-social variables: sport competitive anxiety (SCAT), locus of control, and self concept. - 58 -Table 16 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SPORT COMPETITIVE ANXIETY TEST (SCAT) 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X El i t e 16.50 19. 73 18.00 18.07 Recreational 15.43 16.09 16.04 15.86 x- 15.96 17.91 17.02 16.96 Table 17 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON LOCUS OF CONTROL T T ^ ^ ^ Age Group 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X Eli t e 16.67 15 90 13 50 15.30 Recreational 16.95 17 62 15 14 16.24 X 16.31 16 76 14 32 15.77 Table 18 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON SELF--CONCEPT -T^ ""---^  Age .' Group^ "->--^ ' 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X El i t e 62.83 63 .32 60 .61 61.92 Recreational 60.62 60 .09 57 .54 59.42 X 61.72 61 .20 59 .07 60.67 - 59 -Hypothesis l.(b) states, the e l i t e athlete has, a higher self-concept than the recreational athlete. Hypothesis l.(c) states the e l i t e athlete is less anxious as measured by the Sport Competitive Anxiety Test. Hypothesis l.(d) states the e l i t e athlete i s more internally controlled than the recreational athlete. The results of the multivariate and univariate analysis of variance with a trend analysis on age for the three psycho-social factors are presented in Table 19. Table 19 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP EFFECT: SCAT, LOCUS OF CONTROL, AND SELF-CONCEPT D.F. =3, 128.0 p < > 0 0 4 F = 4.78 T T r , Hypothesis Univariate P less Variable J V Mean Square F than SCAT 159.31 8.34 .005 Locus of Control 53.38 2.28 .134 Self-Concept 209.12 1.58 .211 Multivariate and univariate alpha levels required for rejection = .05. The multivariate main effect for groups was s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant (P < .004), with SCAT accounting for the majority of the difference between.the two groups of athletes (P < .005). Referring to Table 16, the el i t e athletes are shown to exhibit a higher SCAT score. Hypothesis l.(c) stated that the el i t e athlete would - 60 -exhibit a lower SCAT score because i t was thought that the e l i t e athlete performs his s k i l l s at such a high standard by excluding the environment. A highly anxious athlete creates too many errors in his activity. However, the findings are i n the reverse direction of hypothesis l,(.c) and i t is not accepted. The multivariate analysis of variance for group effect indicates no significant difference between the two soccer groups with regards to self-concept or locus of control. Therefore, hypotheses'l.(b) and l.(d) must be rejected. The results of the multivariate and univariate analyses of variance, as presented in Table 20, show a significant Age-linear effect (P < .004) and an insignificant Age-quadratic (P < .1231). The univariate F's indicate that the main contributor to the overall Age-linear significance is the locus of control variable (P < .018) . Table 20 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR AGE-LINEAR EFFECT: SCAT, LOCUS OF CONTROL, AND SELF-CONCEPT D.F. = 3 , 1 2 8 ' ° P < .004 F = 4.77 Variable Hypothesis Mean Square Univariate F P less than SCAT 27.38 1.43 0.233 Locus of Control 149.82 6.39 0.013 Self-Concept 158.53 1.20 0.276 Multivariate and univariate alpha levels, required for rejection = .05. - 61 -Figures 7, 8, and 9 ill u s t r a t e that the main contributor to the Age-linear effect is locus of control. Hypothesis 2 states that the magnitude of the difference between the two soccer groups increases as age increases. The results of the multi-variate and univariate analyses of variance for Group x Age interaction are presented in Table 21. The interaction of Group x Age was not st a t i s t i c a l l y significant (P < .802), thus hypothesis 2 is not supported with this data and i t is rejected. Table 21 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP x AGE INTERACTION EFFECTS: SCAT, LOCUS OF CONTROL, AND SELF-CONCEPT D.F. = 6 , 256.0 p < 8 Q 2 F= .51 Variable Hypothesis Mean Square Univariate F P less than SCAT 18.51 0.97 0.382 Locus of Control 7.21 0.31 0.736 Self-Concept 2.80 0.02 0.979 Multivariate and univariate alpha levels required for rejection= .05. Self-Concept Sub-Scales The results from the above multivariate analysis indicated that the total self-concept score was not a s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant discriminator between the recreational and e l i t e groups. However, scores from the six sub-scales were analyzed in another multivariate analysis in an attempt to isolate specific descriminating self-concept components, i f any did indeed exist. Tables 22-27 provide a summary of the means of the six dependent - 6-2 -20 15 1 :—^ 1 1 9 12 15 Years of 3ge Figure 7. A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON SCAT' 18-i Years, of age Figure. 8. A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON LOCUS OF CONTROL Figure 9-.. A COMPARISON OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON SELF-CONCEPT (TOTAL) - 64 -' variablesr behavior- A , ^n-tellectual (18), physical (12) anxiety (.12), popularity (12) , and happiness (.9) . Table 22 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - BEHAVIOR ^ u ^ l ^ 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X Eli t e 14 .37 13 04 13 54 13 65 Recreational 15 24 13 48 13 81 14 18 X 14 80. 13 26 13 67 13. 91 Table 23 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - INTELLECTUAL 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X Eli t e 13 96 15 .14 13 77 14 29 Recreational 14 76 13 14 12 50 13. 47 X 14 36 14 14 13. 13 13. 88 Table 24 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - PHYSICAL ^ r ^ p ^ e ^ 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X Eli t e 9.58 9.77 9.08 9.48 Recreational 8.19 8.57 7.32 8.03 X 8.88 9.17 8.20 8.75 1. The total number of questions that were associated with that specific sub-scale. - 65 -Table 25 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUE-SCALE - ANXIETY 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X El i t e 9.75 9.63 9.38 9.59 Recreational 9.90 10.05 9.18 9.71 x 9.82 9.70 9.28 9.65 Table 26 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - POPULARITY 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X El i t e 9.25 10.23 9.65 9.71 Recreational 8.09 9.00 9.36 8.82 X 8.82 9.61 9.50 9.26 Table 27 CELL AND MARGINAL MEANS FOR THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL ATHLETES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALE - HAPPINESS ^ o V ^ ! ^ 9 yr. 12 yr. 15 yr. X Eli t e 7.92 7.54 7.40 7.62 Recreational 7.14 7.52 7.00 7.22 X 7.53 7.53 7.20 7.42 - 66 -Hypothesis l.(b) states-that the e l i t e athlete displays a higher self-concept than the recreational athlete. A summary of the results of the multivariate analysis on the six sub-scales of self-concept comparing the two athletic groups i s presented in Table 28. Table 28 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP EFFECT: SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALES D.F. = 6 > 1 2 5 - ° P <.008 F = 3.04 Variable Hypothesis Univariate P less Mean Square F than Behavior 8.65 0.78 0.378 Intellect r 21.51 2.03 0.157 Physical 70.52 8.45 0.004 Anxiety 0.49 0.09 0.768 Popularity 25.43 5.02 0.027 Happiness 5.98 1.66 0.200 Multivariate and univariate alpha levels required for rejection = .05 The results of the multivariate analysis of variance on the six s e l f -concept sub-scales indicate a significant group effect (P < .008). The univariate F breakdown reveals that the athlete's self-concept dealing with physical development (P < .004) and popularity (P < .027) are the two primary contributors to the overall significant group effect. Furthermore, Tables 24 and 25 indicate that the significance of the two sub-scales, physical development and popularity, are in favor of the el i t e athlete. - 67 -The results of the multivariate and univariate analyses of variance for the six sub-scales of self-concept, as presented in Table 29, indicate an Age-linear effect (P < .015), and an insignificant Age-quadratic effect (P < .2476). Of interest is the fact that neither one of the six sub-scales was significant by i t s e l f when considered in the univariate analysis. However, taken together, the six sub-scales account for a significant amount of the varia b i l i t y in the Age-linear effect. Table 29 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR AGE-LINEAR EFFECT: SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALES D.F. = 6 , 125.0 _ ^ F = 2.77 . , H y p o t h e s i s Univariate P less Variable J r Mean Square F than Behavior 28.45 2.58 0.111 Intellect 30.85 2.91 0.091 Physical . 10.57 1.27 0.262 Anxiety 6.51 1.17 0.281 Popularity 14.95 2.95 0.088 Happiness 2.22 0.62 0.434 Multivariate and univariate alpha levels required for rejection = .05 The results of the multivariate and univariate analyses of variance for Group x Age interaction, of the six sub-scales of self-concept, are presented in Table 30.. The interaction of Group x Age for the six sub-scales was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant (P < .248) , This in i t s e l f is - 68 -important because i t suggests.that both soccer groups, the e l i t e and the recreational, changed in the same manner over time (age). Table 30 MULTIVARIATE AND UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR GROUP x AGE INTERACTION: SELF-CONCEPT SUB-SCALES D.F. = 12 , 250.0 p < ^ F = 1 248 * 25 Variable Hypothesis Mean Square Univariate F P less than Behavior 1.05 0.09 0.91 Intellect 23.36 2.20 0.11 Physical 0.92 0.11 0.90 Anxiety 1.08 0.19 0.82 Popularity 3.14 0.62 0.54 Happiness 1.56 0.43 0.65 Multivariate and univariate alpha levels required for rejection = .05 Table 31 presents a summary of a l l of the s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant Group and Age main effects and Group x Age interactions of the e l i t e and recreational soccer players. The order of presentation follows the documented- results of this chapter. It i s of importance to note the absence of any s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant interaction> which implies that the two groups changed across the ages in the same manner. Table 31 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT GROUP AND AGE MAIN EFFECTS AND GROUP BY AGE INTERACTIONS OF ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS Variables Main Effect Multivariate Significance Level Significant Univariate Variables Univariate Significant Level Personality Traits Psycho-Social Self-Concept Sub-Scales Age-Linear P < .0001 Dominance P < .0001 Persistence P < .0003 Tough-mindedness P < .0026 Self-confidence P < .0002 Extraversion P < .0001 Age-Quadratic P < .0001 Dominance P < .002 Persistence P < .0001 Group P < .004 SCAT P < .005 Age-Linear P < .004 Locus of Control P < .013 Group P < .008 Physique P < .004 Popularity P < .027 Age-Linear P < .015 None Multivariate and univariate alpha levels required for significance = (P < .05). - 70 -Chapter 5 DISCUSSION The discussion of the results deals separately with each variable: personality t r a i t s , self-concept, sport competitive anxiety, and locus of control. Related research findings w i l l be compared to the results of this study, together with possible explanations as to why the results occurred as they did. Personality A s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference was not found between the two soccer groups with regards to the six personality traits that were hypothesized in this study to distinguish the e l i t e players from the recreational players. Thus, the data does not support hypothesis l.(a) and i t must be rejected. Heusner (1952), Seymour (1956), Slusher (1964), Kroll (1965), Kane (1966), Behrman (1967), Warburton and Kane (1967), Ogilvie (1968), Cooper (1969), and Berlin (1974) have a l l stated thatf.top level athletes possess more 'positive' personality traits than athletes of lesser a b i l i t y . They have identified aggressiveness, dominance, self-confidence, low anxiety, emotional stability, persistence and a tendency towards extraversion as traits analagous with top athletes. However, Hardman's (1973) review of forty-two athletic personality studies suggests that the interpretation of some of the results in the above studies were not accurate. Hardman (1973), in presenting his own patterns of individual differences among athletes, found that eli t e athletes were more intelligent, dominant, and possessed higher surgency and ergic tension, lower super-ego strength, and were emotionally stable - 71 -and independent. He states, that extraversion was very dependent on the sport involved. The results of the multivariate and univariate analyses are in partial agreement with both Ogilvie (1968) and Hardman (1973) but do not f u l l y support either one. Some of the traits are in direct contrast to the hypothesized philosophy, while other traits appear to be favoring one direction although not enough to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant (Table 32). Having analyzed the six personality traits that were hypothesized to distinguish the e l i t e soccer players, a further multivariate and univariate analysis of variance was performed on a l l fourteen primary personality traits of Cattell's (1969, 1975) questionnaires, plus one of the secondary factors, extraversion. This was done to identify any personality t r a i t ( s ) , not originally included i n the hypotheses, that appeared to differentiate between the two groups. As can be seen in Figures 10-12, few of the personality traits vary significantly from the mean sten score 5-6, for any age group. Although the group effect was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant, meaning there was no difference between the two soccer groups, the soccer players as a whole differed from the standards, in obedience (E) and tough-mindedness (I). The results of the above multivariate and univariate analyses of variance indicate a. significant age effect i n the personality t r a i t s . This means that the personality of the soccer players changed from one age level to the next. This is normal since personality as a whole is developed and changed over time. The twelve year old comparison reveals the e l i t e player of this sample to be more persevering (G) than the recreational athletes sampled. There was no major discrepancy between the fifteen year olds with Table 32 A COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES OF CRITERION SOCCER GROUPS ON CATTELL'S PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRES Personality Factor A B C D E F G H I J N 0 \ °-2 % 4^ Ex Kane (1966) 1) Professionals 6.8 6.1 5.1 * NA 5.8 5.3 4.2 5.2 5.8 NA 5.9 6.5 • 6.0 5.1 6.0 6.0 5.6 11) Young Professionals 5.8 5.7 6.0 NA 4.0 6.3 5.1 5.8 5.4 NA 5.9 5.5 4.8 5.8 6.7 4.7 5.5 H i ) Amateur Internationals Hardman (1968) 5.7 7.8 4.5 NA 5.7 6.7 4.8 3.6 5.4 NA 5.0 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.4 6.0 5.6 iv) 13 Club Players Rizzardo (1980) 5.7 6.5 4.0 NA 6.2 7.3 4.3 5.8 4.5 NA 3.7 6.9 5.5 4.9 3.6 7.3 6.8 v) 9 yr. old e l i t e 6.2 6.2 7.0 5.4 3.9 5.5 4.1 6.4 3.4 3.6 5.3 4.2 NAPT NAP 5.0 5.2 5.6 vl) 9 yr. old recreational 5.4 5.4 6.1 4.6 3.5 5.0 4.3 5.3 4.0 3.7 4.1 3.5 NAP NAP 4.5 5.0 5.2 v i i ) 12 yr. old e l i t e 5.8 5.6 6.5 6.1 6.3 6.6 3.6 5.9 4.2 4.2 6.2 4.2 NAP NAP 4.9 6.0 6.0 v i i i ) 12 yr. old recreational 4.8 5.1 6.6 6.1 6.2 5.9 2.9 5.6 4.8 4.1 5.8 4.8 NAP NAP. 4.6 5.4 5.6 ix) 15 yr. old el i t e 6.5 5.1 6.3 5.5' 6.5 7.6 5.6 6.1 5.1 6.1 4.5 5.4 NAP NAP 5.3 6.0 6.9 x) 15 yr. old recreational 6.1 5.3 6.2 5.7 6.9 6.3 5.6 6.2 5.1 5.7 4.4 5.4 NAP NAP 5.4 5.9 6.3 ft f NA - not available; NAP - not applicable (Hardman, 1973:84-87) - 73 -the exception that the e l i t e athlete of this sample was significantly more enthusiastic. The findings noted immediately above, must be interpreted with some caution. Although the two groups do differ on some of the variables in Figures 10-12, these differences are not s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant. Self-Concept The multivariate and univariate analyses that included the total self-concept score suggested that when the two soccer groups were compared using the total self-concept score only, no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference occurred. However, when the six individual sub-scales were considered in a separate analysis, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant group effect (P < .008) and age-linear effect (P < .015) was detected. Two of the six sub-scales, 'popularity' and 'physical development,' are the main contributors to the overall group and age-linear effect. This means that the two groups varied significantly with regards to the sub-scales of self-concept and that there was a difference across the ages. The results of the present study concur with those obtained by Cratty, Passer, and Roy (1975) who administered a pre-season and post-season s e l f -concept test to male and female soccer players in California. They found that the soccer boys "... gave responses which indicated an increase in their perceived popularity during the course of the season, while the non-sport group of boys evidenced a decrease in their perceptions of themselves as 'popular'" (Cratty et a l . , 1975:25). Their finding that a player's anxiety level decreased during the season was not tested in this study. A major concern with.the above study is the small number of subjects involved per c e l l - approximately nine. - 74 - cu to CJ to C cu a) C c m to -a o cu o CO "H - H rH > C <U ^H W rd 4-1 -r l 0) C C rJ qj - H CO 4-> T J O CU O r H CO CO I CU O > •r l i H CO "H T j I 4 - J , Q t H C O b O C ' H O C d b O H 3 - r j r H 4-j g 4-1 00 CU O 6 CU X W C/3 < j f l j H C/T W _ Factor A B C D E F G H I J N O Q ^ Q ^ E x Eli t e (N=24X ) Recreational (N = 21)( ) Figure 10 A COMPARISON OF ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS AT NINE YEARS OF AGE E l i t e (N=22)( ) Recreational (N = 21) ( ) Figure 11 A COMPARISON OF ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS AT TWELVE YEARS OF AGE Figure 12 A COMPARISON OF ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS AT FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE - 77 -Further comparisons with: other studies, are d i f f i c u l t in that past researchers have generally regarded self-concept as a singular score and/or they compared non-athletes with athletes. Athletes are generally quite active and have a better than average fitness level. Since the results of this study indicate that the athletes had a high self-concept score, the findings are in agreement with Copper-smith (1959), Wilkin (1964), Schendel (.1970), Brown (1970), Read (1969), Hurley (1971), Warren (1972) and Pate (1972), who found self-concept to be positively related to athletes and individuals who maintain high fitness levels. Observation of the SCAT and self-concept percentile ranking (Tables 33,34) suggests a negative correlation between the two psycho-social variables. This i s in agreement with Lipsitt (1958) and Rosenburg (1965) and in disagreement with Kowitz (1967) who found a positve relationship between anxiety and self-concept. This may be explained by the two discriminating self-concept sub-scales: popularity and physical development. It i s speculated that an individual who plays in the V. and D. League is in better physical condition than a player in the recreational league. This may be a result of the extra number of training sessions, games, and possibly other sports the e l i t e players participate i n . Being in better physical condition may lead e l i t e players to believe they are popular due to their physical development, together with their selection to play in the Vancouver and District Soccer League (e l i t e ) . The relative immaturity of the nine and twelve year olds in possibly using this thinking process i s explained: by Warburton and Kane (19.66:67) who found that "motor s k i l l s are among the chief resources of social prestige for boys in the period before maturity." - 78 -Table 33 PERCENTILE RANK OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS ON THE SCAT, WHEN COMPARED TO ESTABLISHED NORMS FOR INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME AGE Age Group Score % - i l e 9 yr. old Elite 16.5 37 Recreational 15.4 30 12 yr. old Elit e 19.73 57 Recreational 16.09 31 15 yr. old Elite 18.00 39 Recreational 16.04 18 (Martens, 1976:96-98) Table 34 PERCENTILE RANK OF THE ELITE AND RECREATIONAL SOCCER PLAYERS ON SELF-CONCEPT, WHEN COMPARED TO ESTABLISHED NORMS FOR INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME AGE Age Group Score % - i l e 9 yr. old Elite 62.89 73 Recreational 60.62 70 12 yr. old Eli t e 63.32 77 Recreational 60.09 69 15 yr. old El i t e 60.61 70 Recreational 57.54 61 (Piers and Harris, 1969:11) - 79 -However, due to the high, expectancy levels of their coaches and teammates, and the pressure put on themselves, perhaps the e l i t e players view not making an error as c r i t i c a l to maintaining a high, self-concept, especially the popularity sub-scale. The above expectations and pressures may lead to the higher anxiety level exhibited by the e l i t e players. Sport Competitive Anxiety (SCAT) The results of the present investigation indicate that there was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference between the two soccer groups with regards to SCAT. However, the findings do not substantiate hypothesis 1.(c) which states that e l i t e soccer players would exhibit a lower SCAT than the recreational soccer players. Although both groups scored below the 50-th percentile (Table 33), the recreational group indicated that they were less anxious than the e l i t e players when they were put into a sport competitive situation, specifically soccer. Since the e l i t e soccer players participate in a league that plays a higher calibre of soccer, the results of this study are in agreement with Warburton (1967) who found that soccer players showed greater anxiety levels as their calibre improved, unt i l they reach international status. The results in the present study are thus in contradiction with those obtained by Heusner (1950), Cureton (1960), Daugert (1966), Ogilvie (1968), Cooper (1969), and Kane (1970) who have found that e l i t e athletes exhibit low anxiety levels. However, due to the fact that the majority of the studies did not use a specific sport competitive anxiety test, such as SCAT, direct comparisons between the above research, and the present study are d i f f i c u l t to make. As mentioned above, the e l i t e athletes exhibited a moderate SCAT level, - 80 -compared to established norms, A speculative proposition to explain these findings is that the e l i t e players take a much more serious approach to a soccer game than, the recreational athlete. This attitude results in the intensified level of competition found in the Vancouver and District (V. and D.)League ( e l i t e ) . Thus, i f an individual makes an error in the game, i t may cause his team to lose that game. Losing a game in the V. and D. League competition has a more long-term effect on the e l i t e player than losing a game for the recreational player because of the time spent in preparation for the match. On the average, a V. and D. team's time schedule for one week w i l l consist of two to three practices for an hour and a half each, plus one league game and an exhibition match. A recreational team w i l l play one league game and possibly have one one-hour practice per week. Considering the above situation, i t is not unusual to see a recreational player extremely relaxed in a game. The individual i s not overly competitive and is playing with primarily a recreational purpose. The e l i t e athlete usually has specific goals in mind, some of which may be to become the best in the league, province, or possibly country for his age group. The recreational team usually cannot and does not attempt to progress further, in a competitive sense, than the city championship. Locus of Control -The data from this study suggests that no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences exist between the two soccer groups on the locus of control of reinforcement scale, although the e l i t e players did have a higher mean throughout the three age levels tested.. The primary contributor to the main effect for age was locus of control of reinforcement. This result is in accordance with Nowicki and Strickland (.1973:149) who state that "as - 81 -individuals get older, the more internal they become.'•' It is of importance to stress that there i s no locus of control difference between the two groups of players. Thus, the concept that the athlete becomes el i t e in his activity due to his inner control i s not supported by these athletes. Therefore, other learning and performance factors, such as motivation, feedback, parental and peer support (or pressure), and genetic endowment may be the discriminating variables between the two groups of athletes. The most probable reasons for the failure to discriminate between the two soccer groups in the majority of the variables are: 1. the nature of the tests used; 2. the role playing individuals participate in, perhaps involuntarily; and 3. there exists no. true difference between the two groups. The reasons w i l l be discussed in turn. Fi r s t , although the instruments used were selected only after f u l f i l l i n g the c r i t e r i a set out previously, the tests may be of more use i f they were sport oriented. "These possible test shortcomings support the current contention of some researchers (Mischel, 1969; Bowers, 1973) that there i s a need for close integration of specific situations (i.e. the functions required in soccer) to personality variables" (Reeves, 1979:73). An interesting note is that only the SCAT instrument i s sport specific and i t was the lone differentiating variable between the two soccer groups. The second possible reason for the lack of significance is role playing. It is apparent that an environment may dictate the actual personality traits exhibited by an individual athlete. "The word personality would appear to have derived from the term 'Persona" - a mask - 82 -worn in ancient, drama" (Whiting, 1973;2). Regardless of the stringent measures researchers use, an investigator in personality must be extremely careful in his observations and conclusions. Whiting (1973:2) states that "...there is l i t t l e doubt that people do wear a 'mask' in their everyday contact with the outside [real] world and that i f we assess a person individually and within a limited context, on what he appears to be, we are quite l i k e l y to be misled, for individuals play roles which may change environmental conditions." His example of a "dominant extraverted sportsman who is the l i f e and sould of the entertainment after a game may be a shy, retiring individual within his own family setting," is exactly the situation some of this study's subjects may find themselves in. During the soccer game they may exhibit a l l of the personality traits Ogilvie (1968), Kane (1966) or Hardman (1973) suggest that e l i t e athletes possess. Once the game has concluded, the player's social environment may force out a varied and different personality. Thus, the responses expressed by the athletes may be what they are like outside of the sport arena. Later in l i f e , when the e l i t e athlete's social l i f e becomes almost totally intertwined with his sport mates, a more consistent pattern may be evident. Thus, the results obtained by Ogilvie (1968), Kane (1966) and Hardman (1973) may be true for the population they examined (college age), but not for younger competitive athletes such as those examined in this study. Thirdly, i t i s a distinct possibility that there is no measureable psychological difference separating soccer players that participate in the Vancouver and District Community League (recreational) and those players that play in the Vancouver and District League ( e l i t e ) . - 83 -Chapter 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purposes of this study were threefold: 1. To develop a psychological profile of e l i t e soccer players at the ages of nine, twelve and fifteen; 2. To determine i f psychological profiles differ between e l i t e and recreational soccer players; and 3. To determine i f the psychological profile differences between the e l i t e and recreational players are constant across the ages of nine, twelve, and fifteen. Three hypotheses were proposed: 1. The el i t e athlete would show higher emotional s t a b i l i t y , tough-mindedness, dominance, persistence, self-confidence, and a tendency toward extraversion than the recreational player; 2. The e l i t e athlete would show a lower sport competitive anxiety level, a higher self-concept, and a more internal locus of control of reinforcement than the recreational athlete; and 3. The magnitude of the difference between the two soccer groups would increase as the players get older. Four self-report questionnaires were administered to 136 soccer players in the Dunbar/Kerrisdale/Point Grey areas of Vancouver. The four tests used were the Sport Competitive Anxiety Test (Martens, 1976), the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control for Children (1973), the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale for Children (1969), and the Cattell's Children's Personality Questionnaire (CPQ) for ages 8-to-12, (1975) or the High School Personality - 84 -Questionnaire (HSPQ) for ages 12-to-16 (1969). The children, ages, nine, twelve and fifteen played in either the. Vancouver and District League (elite) or the Vancouver and District Community League (recreational). To investigate the hypotheses under consideration, three separate multivariate and univariate analyses of variance were performed on: 1. The six personality traits hypothesized to discriminate between the two soccer groups; 2. The six sub-scales of self-concept; and 3. SCAT, locus of control and total self-concept scores. The results of the above three analyses indicated the following: 1. No s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference was noted between groups with regards to the six personality t r a i t s . 2. Statistically significant differences between groups with regards to SCAT - SCAT proved to be higher in e l i t e players. 3. Stati s t i c a l l y significant differences between groups with regards to the six sub-scales of self-concept. A high self-concept of popularity and physical development by the e l i t e athlete was the major contributor to the group effect. 4. A l l of the multivariate and univariate analyses indicated a s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant age effect but no significant interactions. Thus a majority of the variables varied between the ages but both groups were similar in their changes. Conclusions As a result of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The psychological profile of the e l i t e soccer player at the. age of nine, twelve and fifteen cannot be distinguished from the - 85 -recreational athlete.,, with, regards to personality- tra i t s , 2. The e l i t e soccer player at the age of nine, twelve, and fifteen has a higher sport competitive anxiety level, and a higher s e l f -concept in terms of popularity and physical development. Recommendations It is recommended that researchers concerned with the psychological profile of soccer players, or any sport for that matter, should consider the following points in future studies: 1. That the instruments used to determine psychologiaal profiles of athletes be sport oriented; 2. That the instruments used to determine psychological profiles of athletes be used in a sport situation or atmosphere, such as prior to or after a game or practice, regardless i f the teams won/lost or played poorly/well; 3. That a longitudinal study be done on athletes,>so that changes • in personality can be monitored. - 86 -BIBLIOGRAPHY Alderman, R.B. Psychological Behavior In Sport. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. Andersen, P.A. "Personality Differences in U.S. Men's Olympic, National, and Non-National Finalist Swimmers." Swimming Techniques, 13(4): 107-111, 1976. Balazs, E. and E. Nickerson. "A Personality Needs Profile of Some Outstanding Female Athletes." Journal of Cl i n i c a l Psychology, 32(l):45-49, 1976. Basler, M.L., A.C. Fisher, and N.L. Mumford. "Arousal and Anxiety Correlates of Gymnastic Performance." Research Quarterly, 47(4):586-589, 1976. Battle, E. and J.B. Rotter. "Children's Feeling of Personal Control as Related to Social Class and Ethnic Group." Journal of Personality, 31:482-490, 1963. Bialer, I. "Conceptualization of Success and Failure in Mentally Retarded and Normal Children." Journal of Personality, 29:303-320, 1961. Bowman, R.W. "Personality Traits of Cross-Country Runners."; Track•' Technique, 65:2067-2068, 1976. Behrman, R.M. "Personality Differences Between Non-Swimmers and Swimmers." Research Quarterly, 38:163-171, 1967. Bird, E.I. "Personality Structure of Canadian Intercollegiate Women Ice Hockey Players." Contemporary Psychology of Sport, ed. G.S. Kenyon. Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 149-156, 1970. Black, B.M. "The Relationship of Self-Concept to Physical S k i l l and Athletic Participation." Doctoral Dissertation, Springfield College, 1976. Booth, E.G. "Personality Traits of Athletes as Measured by the M.M.P.I." Research Quarterly, 29:127-138, 1958. Bowers, K.S. "Situationism in Psychology an Analysis and a Critique." Psychological Review, 80:307-336, 1973. Brown, R.C. Jr. "The Relationship Between Physical Performance and Personality in Elementary School Children." Contemporary Psychology  of Sport Proceedings. ed. G.S. Kenyon. Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 439-445, 1970. - 87 -Buros, O.K., ed. The Seventh Mental Measurement Yearbook. New Jersey: Grypton Press, 1972. Burton, E.C. "Relationship Between Trait and State Anxiety, Movement Satisfaction, and Participation in P.E. Ac t i v i t i e s . " Research  Quarterly, 47(3)• : 326-351, 1976. Butt, D.S. "Personality and Pathology of the Athlete." Psychology of  Sport. Toronto: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 45-60, 1966. Cattell, R.B. The Scientific. Analysis of Personality. Baltimore: Penguin, 1967. Cattell, R.B. and M.D. Cattell. Handbook for the Jr.-Sr. High School  Personality Questionnaire (The HSPQ). Champaign: IPAT, 1969. Cattell, R.B. and R.B. Porter. Handbook for the Children's Personality  Questionnaire (CPQ). Champaign: IPAT, 1975. Cattell, R.B. and I.H. Scheier. Handbook and Test-Kit, for the IPAT-8- Parallel Form Anxiety Battery. Champaign: IPAT, 1960. Clifton, M.A. and H.M. Smith. "Viewing Oneself Performing. Selective Motor Skil l s in Motion Pictures and Its Effect Upon the Expressed Concept of Self in Performance." Research Quarterly, 23:369-375, 1962. Cofer, C. and W. Johnson. "Personality Dynamics in Relation to Exercise and Sports." Science and Medicine of Exercise and Sport, ed. W. Johnson.. New York: Harper and Row, 525-559, 1960. Colman, J.C. and J.F. Keough. "Motor Performance and Social Adjustment Among Boys Experiencing Serious Learning D i f f i c u l t i e s . " Research  Quarterly, 34:516, 1963. Cooper, L. "Athletics, Activity, and Personality: A Review of the Literature." Research Quarterly, 40:1:17-22, 1969. Coppersmith, S. "A Method of Determining Types of Self-Esteem." Journal  of Abnormal Social. Psychology, 59:87-94, 1959. Cratty, B.J. Perceptual-Motor Behavior and Educational Processes. Springfield: CC. Thomas, 1969. Cratty, B.J. Psychology and Physical Activity. Englewood C l i f f s , J.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. - 88 -Cratty, B.J., M.W. Passer, and K. Roy. Psychological and Physical Changes  in Young- Female and Male Soccer Players. A report to the American Youth Soccer Organization, 1975. Crites, J.O. Vocational Psychology: The Study of Vocational Behavior and  Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Cureton, T.K. Physical Fitness of Champion Athletes, Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1950. Darden, E. "A Comparison of Body-Image and Self-Concept Variables Among Various Sport Groups." Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University, 1972. Daugert, P.J. "The Relationship of Anxiety and the.Need for Achievement to the Learning of Swimming." Doctoral Dissertation, South Connecticut State College, 1966. Ebeze, S.O. "Psychological Inventories for Competitive Soccer." Master's Thesis, Dalhousie University, 1975. Figone, A.J. "Differences in Personality Traits Between .Baseball Players at Three Selected Levels of Competition." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utah, 1976. Finn, J.A. and W.F. Straub. "Locus, of Control among Dutch and American Women Softball Players;" Research Quarterly, 48(1):56-60, 1977. Finn, J.D. Multivariance: Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Covariance, Regression, and Repeated Measures. Version VI, Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc., September, 1977. Fisher, A.C. "Sport Personality Assessment: Facts, Fallacies, and Perspectives." Physical Educator, 34(l):28-32, 1977. Fitt s , W.H. "The Self-Concept and Behavior: Overview and Supplement." Dede Wallace Center Monograph, No. 7. Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1972. Foster, R.W. "A Discriminate Analysis of Selected Personality Variables Among Successful and Unsuccessful Male High School Athletes." International  Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(2):119-127, 1977. Fraleigh, W. "The Influence of Play Upon Social Emotional Adjustments with Implication for Physical Education." College of Physical  Proceedings, 1956. Gergen, K.J. The Concept of Self. New York: Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1971. - 89 -G i l l i l a n d , K. "Internal versus External Locus of Control and High Level Athletic Competition." Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 39:38, 1974. Hammer, W.M. "Anxiety and Sport Performance." Contemporary Psychology of Sport, ed. G.S. Kenyon. Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 61-65, 1970. Hardman, K. "A dual Approach to the Study of Personality and Performance in Sport." Personality and Performance in Physical Education and  Sport, ed. H.T.A. whiting. Lafayette: Bait. Publishers, 77-122, 1973. Heusner, W.V. "Personality Traits of Champion and former Champion Athletes." Master's Thesis, University of I l l i n o i s , 1952. Hurley, M. "The Effects of Basic Swimming Instruction Upon Self-Concept." Complete Research in Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 14:157, 1972. Husman, B.F. "Sport and Personality Dynamics." Proceedings of the National  College of Physical Education Association for Men, 1969. Ibrahim, H. and N. Morrison. "Self-Actualization and Self-Concept Among Athletes." Research Quarterly, 47(l):68-79, 1976. Iso-Ahola, S. "A Test of the Attribution Theory of Success and Failure with L i t t l e League Baseball Players." Proceedings of the Canadian  Psycho-motor Learning and Sport Psychology Symposium, 323-337, 1975. Johnson, O.G. and J.W. Bommarito. Tests and Measurements in Child Development: A Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1971. Johnson, W.R. and C.N. Cofer. "Personality Dynamics: Psychosocial Impli-cations." Science and Medicine of Exercise and Sport (2nd ed.) eds. W.R. Johnson and E.R. Buskirk. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Johnson, W.R., B.R. Fretz, and J.A. Johnson. "Changes in Self-Concept During a Physical Development Program." Research Quarterly, 39:560-565, 1969. Jones, M.G. "Personality and Perceptual Characteristics." Personality and :  Performance in Physical Education and Sport, ed. H.T. Whiting, Lafayette: Bait Publishers, 11-42, 1973. Kane, J.E. "Personality and Physical A b i l i t y . " Proceedings of the  International Congress of Sport Science, ed. K. Kato. Tokyo, 201-208, 1970. Kane, J.E. "Personality Description of Soccer Ab i l i t y . " Research in  Physical Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1966. - 90 -Kane, J..E. "Personality, Body Concept, and Performance, " Psychological Aspects of Physical Education, ed, John Kane. London: Routledge and Paul, 91-127, 19.73. _, "Personality and Physical A b i l i t i e s . " Contemporary Psychology of Sport, ed. G.S. Kenyon. Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 131-141, 1970. Kauss, D.R. "The Effects of Anxiety and Activation on Athletic Performance." Doctoral Dissertation, Dissertation Abstracts, University of California at Los Angeles, 1976. Kay, R.S., D. Felker and R.O. Varoz. "Sports Interests and Ab i l i t i e s as Contributors to Self-Concept in Junior High School Boys." Research  Quarterly, 43(2):208-215, 1972. Kowitz, G.T. "Test Anxiety and Self-Concept." Childhood Education, 44:162-165, 1967. Krantz, D.S. and V. Stove. "Locus of Control and the Effects of Success and Failure in Young and Community Residing Aged Women." Journal  of Personality, 46(3), Sept. 1978. Kroll, W. "Sixteen Personality Factor Profiles of Collegiate Wrestlers." Research Quarterly, 38:1:47-57, 1965. . "Current Strategies and Problems in Personality Assessment of Athletes." Proceedings of C.I.C, Symposium of Motor Learning, ed. L. Smith. Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 349-367, 1940. Langer, P. "Varsity Football Performance." Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 23:1191-1199, 1966. La Place, J.P. "Personality and Its Relationship to Success in Pro-fessional Baseball." Research Quarterly, 25:313-319, 1954. Lay, N. "The Effects of Learning to Swim on the Self-Concept of College Men and Women." Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University, 19 Lefcourt, H.M. "Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement: A Review." Psychological Bulletin, 65(4) :206-220, 1966. Lip s i t t , L.P. "A Self-Concept Scale for Children and i t s Relationship to the Children's Form of the Manifest Anxiety Scale." Child  Development, 29:463-472, 1958. Lord, J.C. "An Analysis of.Two Behavioral Groups of Grade Three Boys on Selected P-M Tasks ,and Self-Concept," Doctoral Dissertation, Springfield College, 1971. - 91 -Lynn, R.W., J.G. Phelan, and V.L. Kiker. "Beliefs in Internal-External Control of Reinforcement and Participation in Group and Individual Sports." Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 29:551-553, 1969. Martens, R. "Internal-External Control and Social Reinforcement Effects on Motor Performance." Research Quarterly, .42(3) :306-313, 1971. . Social Psychology and Physical Activity. New York, Harper and Row, 1975. . Sport Competition Anxiety Test. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1977. . "Sport Personology" to appear in The Encyclopedia of Physical Education, Volume 5. 36p. (Psychology and Sociology of Sport) Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1977. Martens, R. and D. G i l l "State Anxiety among: Successful and Unsuccessful Trait Anxiety." Research Quarterly, 47:698-708, 1976. Martens, R. and J.A. Simon. "Comparison of Three Predictors of State Anxiety in Competitive Situations." Research Quarterly, 47(3): 381-387, 1976. Martinek, T.J., L.D. Zaichkowsky, and J.T. Chefflis. "Decision-Making in Elementary Age Children: Effects on Motor Skil l s and Self-Concept." Research Quarterly, 48(2), May 1977. Maslow, A.H. Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962. McDonald, R., V.J. Tempone, and W.L. Simmons. "Locus of Control as a Personality and Situational Variable." Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 27:135-141, 1968. Merriman, J.B. "Relationship of Personality Traits to Motor A b i l i t y . " Research Quarterly, 31:163-173, 1960. Minton, B. "Power as a Personality Construct." Progress in Experimental  Psychology Research, ed. B.A. Maher. New York; Academic Press, 229-267, 1967. Mischel, W. "Continuity and Change in Personality." American Psychologist, 24:1012-1018, 1969. Morgan,. W.P. and. WyMvl••Hammer:i..-<-r"'Irif luenc'e- of- Aonipetit-ive Wrestling Upon State Anxiety." Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical .Fitness, 12;42-46, 1972. - 92 -Morgan, W. "Selected Psychological Considerations in Sport." Research  Quarterly, 45:374-389, 1974. Nelson, J. and L. Langer. "Comments on the Athlete's Playing Performance and his Anxiety." Coach and the Athlete, 23:12-13, 1965. Nowicki, S. "Factor Structure of Locus of Control in Children." The  Journal of Genetic Psychology, 129:13-17, 1976. Nowicki, S. Jr. and M.P. Duke. "A Preschool and Primary Internal-External Control Scale." Developmental Psychology, 10:874-880, 1974. Nowicki, S. Jr. and B.R. Strickland. "A Locus of Control Scale for Children." Journal of Consulting and Clinical. Psychology, 40(1): 148-154, 1973. Ogilvie, B.C. "Psychological Consistencies Within the Personality of High Level Competitors." Journal of the American Medical  Association, 205:156-162, 1968. . "Future of Psychology i n Sport." Modern Medicine, June, 61-68, 1972. Ogilvie, B.C. and T.A. Tutko. Problem Athletes and How to Handle Them. London: Pelham, 1966. Orlick, T.D. "A Socio-Psychological Analysis of Early Sports Participation." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Alberta, 1972. Oxendine, J. Psychology of Motor Learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968. . "Emotional Arousal and Motor Performance." Quest, 13:23-32, 1970. Parker, T. Establishing Communication, Leadership and Motivation in Youth Sports. National Youth Sports'Directors' Conference Proceedings ""' Report. Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 1975. Pate, D.W. "The Relationship of Selected Psychological Measures to Wrestling Performance." Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utah, 1972. Perkins, H.V. "Factors Influencing Change in Children's Self-Concept." Child Development, 29:221-230, 1958. Phares, E.J. Locus of Control in Personality. Morristown, New Jersey: Silver Burdett Company, 1976. - 93 -Phelan, J.F. "An Investigation Into the Relationship Between Self-Concept and Selected Physical Fitness Attributes in. 7th and 8th Grade Boys and G i r l s . " Master's Thesis, University of Wyoming, 1973. Piers, E.V. Manual.for the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, "The Way I Feel About Myself." Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969. Piers, E.V. and D.B. Harris. The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, "The Way I Feel About Myself." Nashville, Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969. Rarick, L. and R... McKee. "A Study of Twenty Third Grade Children Exhibiting Extreme Levels of Achievement on Tests on Motor Performance." Research Quarterly, 20:42, 1949. Read, D.A. "The Influence of Competitive and Non-Competitive Programs of Physical Education on Body-Image and Self-Concept." Presented at AAPHER, Boston, 1969. Reeves, J.A. "Personality Characteristics of Athletes Who Play Different Positions in Soccer." Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University, 1979. Rosenburg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Rothfarb, H.I. "A Study of the Psychological Needs and Self-Esteem of College Men Who Exercise Regularly." Doctoral Dissertation, Boston College, 1970. Rotter, J.B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement." Psychological Monographs, 80, 1966 (1, Whole No. 60.) . Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall, 1954. Rotter, J.B., J.E. Chance, and E.J. Phares. Applications of a Social  Learning Theory of Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1972. Rushall, B.S. "Personality Profiles and a Theory of Behavior Modification for Swimmers." Swimming Technique, 66-71, October, 1967. . "An Evaluation of the Relationship Between Personalities and Physical Performance Categories." Contemporary Psychology of Sport, ed. G.S. Kenyon. Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 159-165, 1970. - 94 -. "The Status of Personality Research and Application in Sports and Physical Education." Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical  Education, 13:281-290, 1973. Sarason, S.B., K.S. Davidson, F.F. Lighthall, R.R. Waite and B.K. Ruebush. Anxiety in Elementary School Children. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960. Scanlan, T.K. "The Effect of Competition Trait Anxiety and Success-Failure on the Perception of Threat in a Competitive Situation." Doctoral Dissertation, University of I l l i n o i s at Chicago, 1975. Scanlan,. T.K. and M.W. Passer. "Anxiety-Inducing Factors in Competitive Youth, Sports." Psychological Perspectives in Youth Sports, eds. F.L. Smoll and R.G. Smith. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing, 107-122, 1978. . "The Effects of Competition Trait Anxiety and Game Win-Loss on Perceived Threat in a Natural Competitive Setting." North American  Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, May 1976. Schendel, J. "Psychological Differences Between Athletes and Non-Participants in Athletics at Three Educational Levels." Research  Quarterly, 36:52-67, 1965. . "The Psychological Characteristic of High School Athletes and Non-Participants: A Three Year Longitudinal Study." Contemporary  Psychology of Sport, ed. G.S. Kenyon. Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 79-96, 1970. Sears, P. "Levels of Aspiration in Relation to Some Variables of Personality Cli n i c a l Studies." Journal of Social Psychology, 14:311-336, 1941. Semler, I.J. "Relationship. Among Several Measures of Pupil Adjustment." Journal, of Educational Psychology, 51:60-64, 1960. Shavit, H. and A. Rabinowitz. "Locus of Control, and Effects of Failure on Performance and Perceived Competence." Journal of Personality  Assessment, 42(3), June, 1978. Simon, J.A. and R. Martens. "SCAT as a Predictor of A-States in Varying Competitive Situatons." North American Society for the Psychology  of Sport and Physical Activity, May, 1976. Singer, R.N. Coaching, Athletics, and Psychology. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1972. - 95 -Skubic, E. "Studies of L i t t l e League and Middle League Baseball." Research Quarterly, 27(1):92-110, 1954. Slusher, H. "Personality and Intelligence Characteristics of Selected High School Athletes and Non-Athletes." Research Quarterly, 35:539-545, 1964. Spielberger, CD. "Theory and Research on Anxiety." Anxiety and Behavior, ed. CD. Spielberger. New York: Academic Press, 1966. ' Test Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1973. Sullivan, H.S. The Fusion of Psychiatry and Social Science. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 150-168, 1964. Tattersfield, C.R. "Competitive Sport and Personality Development." Readings in Sport Psychology 2, ed. H.T.A. Whiting. London: Lepus Books, 8-17, 1975. . "Developing Personalities of Successful and Unsuccessful Sports Competitors." Physical Education, Sports, and the Sciences: Papers  Presented in Honor of H. Harrison Clarke, ed. J. Broekhoff, 337-344, 1976. Thomas, G.C "The Relationship Between Personality and Performance of Canadian Women Intercollegiate Basketball Players." Master's Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1977. Thurber, S., D. Heacock, and B. Brown, "The Control Orientation of Black Athletes i n Relation to Unobtrusive Tasks of S k i l l . " Journal of  Psychology, 85:43-44, 1973. Tyler, J.L. "The Relationship Between Self-Concept and Motor Performance of Second-Grade Children." Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972. Ullmann, C Identification of Maladjusted School Children. Monograph No. 7, Washington: U.S. Public Service, 1952. Vanek, M. and B.C. Cratty. Psychology of the Superior Athlete. New York: Macmillan, 1970. Warburton, F. and J.E. Kane. "Personality Related to Sport and Physical Abili t y . " Readings in Physical Education. London: Physical Education Association, 1967. - 96 -Warren, B. "The Relationship Between Self-Concept and Performance on Tests of S k i l l in Basketball." Complete Research in Health,  Physical Education and Recreation, 14:216, 1972. Weiner, E. Theories of Motivation. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co., 1972. Werner,, A.C. and E. Gottheil. "Personality Development and Participation in College Athletics." Research Quarterly, 37:126-131, 1966. whiting, H.T.A. Acquiring Ball S k i l l . Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1969. . . "The Body-Concept." Personality and Performance in Physical Education and Sport. ed. H.T. Whiting. Lafayette: Bait Publishers, 43-76, 1973. Whiting, H.T.A. and E.E. Stembridge. "Personality and the Persistent Non-Swimmer." Research Quarterly, 36:348-356, 1965. Wichern, F. and S. Nowicki, Jr. "Independence Training Practices and > Locus of Control Orientation in Children and Adolescents." Developmental Psychology, 12(1):77, 1976. Wilkin, B.M. "The Effects of Inter-Scholastic Competition of 7th Grade Boys." Dissertation Abstracts, 25:277, 1964. Williams, D.D. "Instruction Stressing Physical Fitness Compared With Instruction Stressing S k i l l Acquisition Upon Self-Concept in Caucasian and Negro Students." Complete Research in Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 15:44, 1973. Wright, D. "Social Reinforcement and Maze Learning in Children." Child  Development, 39:177-183, 1968. Wylie, R.C. The Self-Concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Yaffe, M. "Some Variables Affecting Team Success in Soccer." Readings  in Sports Psychology 2, ed. H.T.A. Whiting. London: Lepus Books, 63-70, 1975. Yarnell, D.C. "Relationship of Physical Fitness to Selected Measures of Popularity." Research Quarterly, 37:286-288, 1966. Zion, L. "Body-Concept as i t Relates to Self-Concept." Research Quarterly, 26:490-495, 1965. --97 -Appendix A RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY CATTELL'S CHILDREN'S PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE DO NOT COPY • 7-T .V; Apply: Institute for Person-a l i t y and A b i l i t y Testing, 1602-04 Coronado Drive, Champaign, I l l i n o i s 61820 Scale Reliability-Dependability Form A (Test-Retest After Two Days) A B C D E F G .59 .72 .47 .67 .67 .70 .66 H I J N 0 .58 .72 .59 .70 .60 .61 .56 Scale Validity Coefficients A .55 B .82 C .73 D .83 E .33 F .91 G .72 H .64 I .69 J .65 N .52 0 .68 Q3 .79 Q4 .76 (Cattell et a l , 1975) DO NOT COPY Apply: Institute for Per-sonality and; A b i l i t y Test-ing, 1602-04*, Coronado Dri^e, * Champaign, I l l i n o i s 61820 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY CATTELL'S HIGH SCHOOL PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE Scale Validity Coefficients - One Form A .67 H .72 B .69 I .70 C .71 J .58 D .63 0 .77 E .65 2^ .61 F .68 ^3 .57 G .68 4^ .74 - 98 -Appendix B Scale Reliability-Dependability - One Form Immediate One Day Immediate One Day A .86 .85 H .81 .81 B .85 .78 I .90 .88 C .79 .77 J .82 .81 D .81 .80 0 .84 .83 E .76 .74 2^ .85 .82 F .82 .76 Q3 .80 .78 F .74 .72 Q, .91' .84 Scale Reliability-Stability - One Form - Six Month Interval A .62 H .69 B .60 I .65 C .58 J .58 D .65 0 .56 E .57 2^ .55 F .53 ^3 .60 G .62 4^ .58 (Cattell and Cattell, 1969:9-10) DO NOT COPY - 99 - Apply to Human Kinetics Appendix C Publishers, Box 5076, Champaign, I l l i n o i s , 61820. NAME OF YOUR SOCCER TEAM YOUR NO. YOUR POSITION ILLINOIS COMPETITION QUESTIONNAIRE 1 DIRECTIONS: Below are some statements about how persons feel when they compete in sports and games. Read each statement and decide i f you HARDLY-EVER, or SOMETIMES, or OFTEN feel this way when you compete in sports and games. If your choice is HARDLY-EVER, blacken the square labeled A, i f your choice is SOMETIMES, blacken the square labeled B, and i f your choice is OFTEN, blacken the square labeled C. There are no :right and wrong  answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Remember to  choose the work that describes how you usually feel when competing in  sports and games. HARDLY-EVER SOMETIMES OFTEN 1. Competing against others is socially enjoyable. A • B • CD 2. Before I compete I feel uneasy. A • B • CD 3. Before I compete I worry about not performing well. A • B • IC • 4. I am a good sportsman when I compete. A • B • C • 5. When I compete I worry about making mistakes. AD B • C • 6. Before I compete I am calm. A • B • CD 7. Setting a goal is important when I compete . A • B • C • 8. Before I compete I get a queasy feeling in my stomach. AD B • C • -100 -HARDLY-EVER SOMETIMES OFTEN 9. Just before competing I notice my A • B D C • heart beats faster than usual. 10. I like to compete in games that demand considerable physical energy. A Q- B • C • 11. Before I compete I feel relaxed. AD. B D CD 12. Before I compete I am nervous,- A D B 0 CD 13. Team sports are more exciting than individual sports. AO B • CD 14. I am nervous wanting to start the game . A D B D CD 15. Before I compete I usually get up tight. AD B D CD ^Martens' Sport Competitive Anxiety Test - Form A, 1976. - 101 -Appendix ,.D NAME OF YOUR SOCCER TEAM YOUR NO. YOUR POSITION ' ILLINOIS COMPETITION QUESTIONNAIRE 1 DIRECTIONS: We want to know how: you feel about competition. You know what competition i s . We a l l compete. We try to do better than our brother or sister or friend at something. We try to score more points i n a game. We try to get the best grade in class or win a prize that we want. We a l l compete in games and sports. Below are some sentences about how boys and gir l s feel when they compete in games and sports. Read each statement below and decide i f you HARDLY-EVER, or SOMETIMES, or OFTEN feel this way when you compete in games and sports. Mark a check (>/) beside A i f your choice is HARDLY-EVER, a check (•*/) beside B_ i f you choose SOMETIMES, and a check (-/) beside C_ i f you choose C. rThere are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Remember choose the word which  describes how you usually feel when competing in games and sports. 1. Competing against others is fun. 2. Before I compete I feel uneasy. 3. Before I compete I worry about not performing well. 4. I am a good sportsman when I compete. 5. When I compete I worry about making mistakes. 6. Before I compete I am calm." 7. Setting a goal is important when competing. HARDLY-EVER SOMETIMES OFTEN A B C A B C A B C A B C A. B C A B C A B C - 102 -HARDLY-EVER SOMETIMES OFTEN 8. Before I compete I get a funny feeling in my stomach. A B C 9. Just before competing I notice my heart beats faster than usual. A B C 10. I like rough games. A B C 11. Before I compete I feel relaxed^ A B C 12. Before I compete I am nervous. A B C 13. Team sports are more exciting than individual sports, A B C 14. I get nervous wanting to start the game , A B C 15. Before I compete I usually get up tight, A B C '''Martens ' Sport Competitive Anxiety Test - Form C, 1976. - 103 -Appendix E NAME OF YOUR SOCCER TEAM YOUR NO. ' ' ' ' YOUR POSITION ATTITUDE AND OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE1 DIRECTIONS: We are interested in gathering information about your attitude and opinions on various topics. We are then going to see i f different aged students differ on the various topics. Read each statement below and decide i f you would answer YES or N0_. When you have decided which answer is correct for yourself, put a checkmark (/) beside either YES, i f you agree with the sentence or NO, i f you disagree with the statement. 1. Do you believe that most problems w i l l solve themselves i f you just don't fool with them? YES NO 2. Do you believe that you can stop yourself from catching a cold? YES NO 3. Are some kids born lucky? YES NO 4. Most of the time do you feel that getting good grades means a great deal to you? YES • NO 5. Are you often blamed for things that just aren't your fault? YES NO 6. Do you believe that i f somebody studies hard enough he or she can pass any subject? YES NO 7. Do you feel that most of the time i t doesn's pay to try hard because things never turn out right anyway? YES NO 8. Do you feel that i f things start out well i n the morning that i t ' s going to be a good day no matter what you do? YES NO 9. Do you feel that most of the time parents listen to what their children have to say? YES NO - 104 -10. Do you believe that wishing can make good things happen? YES NO 11. When you get punished does i t usually seem it s for.no good reason at a l l ? YES NO 12. Most of the time do you find i t hard to change a friend's (mind) opinion? YES NO 13. Do you think that cheering more than luck helps a team win? YES NO 14. Do you feel that i t ' s nearly impossible to change your parents mind about anything? YES NO 15. Do you believe that your parents should allow you to make most of your own decisions? YES NO 16. Do you feel that when you do something wrong there's very l i t t l e you can do to make i t right? YES NO 17. Do you believe that most kids are just born good at sports? 0 YES NO 18. Are most of the other kids your age stronger than you are? YES NO 19. Do you feel that one of the best ways to handle most problems is just not to think about them? YES NO 20. Do you feel that you have a lot of choice in deciding who your friends are? YES NO 21. If you find a four leaf clover do you believe that i t might bring you good luck? YES NO 22. Do you often feel that whether you do your homework has much to do with what kinds of grades you get? YES NO 23. Do you feel that when a kid your age decides to hit you, there's l i t t l e you can do to stop him or her? YES NO - 105--24. Have you ever had a good luck charm? YES NO 25. Do you believe that whether or not people like you depends on how you act? YES NO 26. Will your parents usually help you i f you ask them to? YES NO 27. Have you f e l t that when people were mean to you i t was usually for no reason at all? YES NO 28. Most of the time, do you feel that you can change what might happen tomorrow by what you do today? YES ^  NO 29. Do you believe that when bad things are going to happen they just are going to happen no matter what you try to do to stop them? YES NO 30. Do you think that kids can get their own way i f they just keep trying? YES NO 31. Most of the time do you find i t useless to get your own way at home? YES NO 32. Do you feel that when good things happen they happen because of hard work? YES NO 33. Do you feel that when somebody your age wants to be your enemy there's l i t t l e you can do to change matters? YES NO 34. Do you feel that i t ' s easy to get friends to do what you want them to? YES NO 35. Do you usually feel that you have l i t t l e to = about what you et to eat at home? YES NO 36. Do you feel that when someone doesn't like you there's l i t t l e you can do about it? YES NO 37. Do you usually feel that i t ' s almost useless to try in school because most other children are just plain smarter than you are? YES NO - 106:=^  38. Are you the kind of person who believes that planning ahead makes things turn out better? YES NO 39. Most of the time, do you feel that you have l i t t l e to say about what your family decides to do? YES NO 40. Do you think i t ' s better to be smart than to be lucky? YES NO Nowicki and Strickland's Children's Locus of Control Scale, 1973. Appendix F NAME OF YOUR SOCCER TEAM '''' YOUR NO. YOUR POSITION PIERS-HARRIS SELF CONCEPT SCALE Here are a set of statements. Some of them are true of you and so you w i l l circle the yes. Some are not true of you and so you w i l l c i r c l e the no. Answer every question even i f some are hard to decide, but do not circl e both yes and no. Remember, ci r c l e the yes i f the statement is generally like you, or circle the no i f the statement i s generally not like you. There are no right or wrong answers. Only you can t e l l us how you feel about yourself, so we hope you w i l l mark the way you really feel inside. 1. My classmates make fun of me. yes no 2. I am a happy person, yes no 3. It is hard for me to make friends, yes no 4. I am often sad. yes no 5. I am smart. yes no 6. I am shy. yes no 7. I get nervous when the teacher calls on me. yes no 8. My looks bother me. yes no 9. When I grow up, I w i l l be an important person, yes no 10. I get worried when we have tests in school. yes no 11. I am unpopular. yes no 12. I am well behaved in school. yes no 13. It is usually my fault when something. goes wrong. yes no 14. I cause trouble to my family. yes no 15. I am strong. yes no 16. I have good ideas . yes no 17. I am in important member of my family. yes no 18. I usually want my own way. yes no 19. I am good at making things with my hands. yes no 20. I give up easily, yes no - 108 -46. no no yes no 21. I am good in my school work. yes 22. I do many had things. <yes 23. I can draw well. 24. I am good in music. yes no 25. I behave badly at home- yes no 26. I am slow in finishing my school work. yes no 27. I am an important member of my class. yes no 28. I am nervous. yes no 29. I have pretty eyes. yes no 30. I can give a good report i n front of the class. yes no no 31. In school I am a dreamer. yes 32. I pick on my brother(s) and sister(s). yes 33. My friends lik e my ideas. yes 34. I often get into trouble. yes 35. I am obedient at home. 36. I am lucky. yes 37. I worry a l o t . yes no 38. My parents expect too much of me . yes 39. I like being the way I am. yes 40. I feel l e f t out of things. yes 41. I have nice hair. yes 42. I often volunteer in school. yes 43. I wish I were different. 44. I sleep well at night. yes no 45 . I hate school. no no no yes no no no no no no no no yes no yes no I am among the last to be chosen for games, ' yes no yes no no 47. I am sick a l o t . 48. I am often mean to other people. yes 49. My classmates in school think I have good ideas, yes no 50. I am unhappy. yes no 51. I have many friends. yes no 52. I am cheerful. yes no 53. I am dumb about most things, yes no - 109 -54. . I am good looking. yes. no 55. I have lots of pep. yes no 56. I get into a lot of fights. yes no 57. I am popular with boys. yes no 58. People pick on me - yes. no 59. My family is disappointed in me. yes no 60. I have a pleasant face. yes no 61. When I try to make something, everything seems to go wrong. yes no 62. I am picked on at home. yes no 63. I am a leader in games and sports. yes no 64. I am clumsy. yes no 65. In games and sports, I watch instead of play. yes no 66. I forget what I learn . yes no 67. I am easy to get along with .' yes no 68. I lose my temper easily. yes no 69. I am popular with girls . yes no 70. I am a good reader. yes no 71. I would rather work alone than with a group. yes no 72. I li k e my brother (sister). yes no 73. I have a good figure . yes no 74. I am often afraid. yes no 75. I am always dropping or breaking things. yes no 76. I can be trusted . yes no 77. I am different from other people. yes no 78. I think bad thoughts. yes no 79. I cry easily. yes no 80. I am a good person. yes no Score: Piers and Harris' Children's Self-Concept Scale, 1969. - 1-10 -Appendix G CONSENT FORM Dear Parent/Guardian: Researchers in sport have stated that individuals that participate in sports, usually possess similar characteristics with respect to personality, self-confidence, and anxiety levels. Until recently, soccer has not been involved in any such study. Since soccer i s rapidly becoming one of North America'a most popular sports, both at the recreational and professional level, i t appears appropriate to look at the young players in the sport and see i f they truly possess somewhat similar t r a i t s . Approximately f i f t y male players from each of three divisions from the Vancouver and District and Community Leagues w i l l be asked to f i l l out four questionnaires that have been adapted for, and repeatedly used with, young children and adolescents. The four questionnaires are as follows: Personality: Cattell's Children's Personality Questionnaire Approximately 20-30 minutes to complete each form. One form w i l l be done during each of the two sessions. Self-Concept: Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale Approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. Anxiety: Martens' Sport Competitive Anxiety Test (SCAT) Approximately 2-5 minutes to complete. Locus of Control: Nowicki's Locus of Control Scale for Children Approximately 15-25 minutes to complete. A further comparison that w i l l be of interest i s between the players of the Vancouver and District teams and the Community League teams. This is an attempt to see i f there actually is any difference between players participating in the two leagues. This comparison w i l l be combined with the primary goal of developing a profile of young soccer players, ages nine, twelve, and fifteen years. / - 112 -Dear Parent/Guardian-If you w i l l allow your child to be a participant in the proposed project by MARC R. RIZZARDO, in developing a profile of young soccer players, ages nine, twelve, and fifteen years, please return this sheet to the coach of the team your child or adolescent plays for as soon as possible. The questionnaires w i l l be f i l l e d out at the DUNBAR COMMUNITY CENTER, ROOM 103, on MARCH 31st and APRIL 7th. The time that your son w i l l be asked to show up at the COMMUNITY CENTER w i l l be forwarded by the coach. It w i l l be between 12:00 (noon) and 3:00 p.m. on each Saturday. The player w i l l be requested to come for a specific hour during that time interval. Thank You. I would like my child/adolescent to become involved with the project dealing with the development of a profile of young soccer players, ages nine, twelve, and fifteen years. Signature of Parent/Guardian Signature of Parent/Guardian PHONE ADDRESS TEAM YOUR SON PLAYS FOR COMMUNITY or VANCOUVER AND DISTRICT (Please check one) DOES YOUR SON PLAY ANY ORGANIZED SPORT BESIDES. SOCCER If Yes, WHICH SPORT ' •  Level of Competition of the above sport • ,  Does Your Son enjoy any other form of activity (music, art, plays, etc.) ) - 113 -Appendix H INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL SUBJECTS Hi, my name is Marc Rizzardo and I am a graduate student at the University of British Columbia. I am a soccer player at'ithe University of B.C., I coach the Dunbar LePage 7th division Vancouver and District team and I am also an apprentice coach with the Canadian Youth Team. You are here, with the consent of your parents/guardian, to participate in a study I am conducting involving over one hundred soccer players from the Dunbar, Kerrisdale, Point Grey and Killarney d i s t r i c t s in Vancouver. Players aged nine, twelve and fifteen are involved in the survey. The four questionnaires you w i l l be asked to complete are being given so that I can begin to understand the attitudes, concepts, and various personalities of your soccer players that play in both the Vancouver and District Soccer league and the Vancouver and District Recreational league. A l l results are confidential and you w i l l only be known by the number on the questionnaire in front of you. Therefore, please be as honest as possible and f i l l out the questionnaire by yourself. Please read the instructions of each questionnaire carefully before proceeding. Read each question and then f i l l in only the one blank that demonstrates how you feel about that question. Do not miss any questions or your entire results w i l l have to be discarded. There are NO RIGHT OR WRONG answers. The time required to complete the questionnaire w i l l be 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077281/manifest

Comment

Related Items